An independent provider in the City of Derby area

3. Mr A complains about the actions taken by 111 and East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS), when his father Mr B fell at home in November 2023.

4. Specifically, Mr A says:

• 111 failed to connect calls made to them immediately despite them operating as an emergency phone line, there are also time discrepancies between times of when calls were placed to them • 111 failed to properly assess his father and the severity of his injuries which meant the call was categorised lower than what was appropriate • 111 did not keep records of calls made to their services on their database • EMAS did not dispatch an ambulance within the 120-minute time frame expected for the assigned call category • EMAS sent an inadequately kitted ambulance to care and treat Mr A’s father, resulting in an additional ambulance being requested and further delays to his transport to hospital, and • 111 and EMAS did not inform Mr A or his father of third-party services that were available to assist him.

5. As a result of these failings, Mr A says if an ambulance was dispatched sooner, his father could have survived. He says he has faced unexpected financial pressures. He says he has been unable to work because of what happened and feels he cannot leave the house.

6. By bringing his complaint to us, Mr A is seeking financial compensation. He wants both 111 and EMAS to acknowledge its failings and apologise.

9. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mr A, to understand his circumstances and the outcome he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

10. Mr A informed us he had initiated legal action against both organisations in early February 2025. He told us his legal action was struck out (disallowed) by the courts in September due to a transcribing error, in which his initial claim form was mislabelled.

11. Mr A has told us he has an upcoming Vary Order hearing. This is a court order that allows a change to a previously established order and is usually sought when there is a change in circumstances that affects the original order’s applicability or fairness. Although a date has not been set for this, this would allow Mr A to refile his claim.

12. We consider this to be a clear alternative legal remedy even if proceedings are not currently active. The existence of a legal remedy, regardless of whether Mr A wishes to continue with it, show us that an alternative legal remedy is available to him.

13. As a legal remedy is open to Mr A, we need to consider whether it is reasonable for him pursue a resolution to his concerns through that route. In doing this, we have also considered the outcomes he seeks and any other reasons which may prevent Mr A from being able to achieve his outcomes through the legal route.

14. Mr A told us he was seeking a financial remedy but could not quantify an amount. In his complaint form, Mr A stated he wanted the maximum amount of financial remedy. We have also seen in his original claim form to the courts where he outlined he was expecting to recover between £200,000 and £540,000.

15. This is a significant amount, and one we do not normally recommend. Mr A could achieve this sum through legal action as courts normally award higher amounts than we do.

16. Mr A is also seeking an acknowledgement of failings and an apology. Whilst these cannot be directly achievable through the court process, they are a likely by-product of successful legal action. It therefore appears legal action could achieve all of outcomes he is seeking.

17. We explored if there were any other barriers to Mr A taking legal action. Mr A had asked us if he was to refile his claim but make it stayed (paused), would we still accept the complaint. He also told us he represented himself throughout the legal process initially.

18. Mr A has shown he can actively participate in legal proceedings and this indicates a clear ability to engage with formal legal processes. On that basis, we have seen no evidence of any barriers that would prevent him exploring the legal process further.

19. Considering the available information, we can see Mr A has an availability of a legal remedy and it is reasonable for him to pursue this route to achieve the outcomes he seeks. For this reason, we will take no further action on his complaint at this stage.

20. Mr A could return to us if he finds he is unable to pursue legal action. We will need to carefully consider his complaint again to determine what we can and cannot look at, or any outcomes we may be able to achieve.

21. We would ask that Mr A come back to us promptly and without delay. This is because we are unable to investigate complaints brought to us 12 months after someone has become aware of the problem. We may put this time limit to one side if we think there is a good reason to do so and would consider any legal advice or action sought.

22. We are very sorry to hear of his experience, and the difficulties Mr A suffered during and since the events he complains about. We want to express our sincerest condolences for the death of his father. We recognise he has been through a very distressing experience and do not doubt the impact this has had. We hope we have provided reassurance as to the next steps should Mr A wish to return to us following the full exploration of the legal route available to him.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about 111 and East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS). We are very sorry to hear Mr A is unhappy with the care and treatment both organisations provided to his father, Mr B.

2. We have decided to take no further action at this time because we consider it is reasonable for Mr A to explore taking legal action on the issues he brought to us. We understand this has been, and continues to be, a very distressing experience for Mr A and his family.