Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

4. Mr A complains about the care received at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) in October 2021. Specifically, he alleges that:

• a Consultant Surgeon performed surgery on him without locating his hernia properly • PALS offered evasive complaint responses throughout, with delays up to half a year each time he brought his concerns up to them.

5. As a result of claimed failings, Mr A says that he:

• suffered potentially avoidable complications and reconstructive surgery, requiring further hospitalisation • was put through a very long period of avoidable and prolonged pain and distress, deteriorating his wellbeing for the past five years • is psychologically affected and left disfigured, now feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable with his own body • no longer trusts the NHS.

6. As an outcome by bringing this complaint to us, Mr A would like:

• the Trust to apologise for their mistakes to him and for their delays in responding to him. He also seeks an apology acknowledging its actions have led to him needing a second surgery, which presented complications and left him disfigured • service improvements so that the Trust will learn from his negative experience • financial remedy.

7. Mr A had surgery for a right inguinal hernia (abdominal tissue pushing through a weak spot in the lower abdominal walls near the groin) in October 2021. Despite previous diagnoses from multiple doctors and an A&E admission for an obstructed hernia, the Consultant Surgeon performed the procedure but reported finding no hernia, choosing to reinforce the area with mesh as a precaution instead. Mr A experienced post-operative complications, including severe bleeding and persistent pain.

8. Following his surgery Mr A reported the Trust cancelled a total of seven follow-up appointments during the course of 2022, only agreeing to have a face to face visit with him after intervention from the Trust’s Chief Executive Officer in mid-2022.

9. The Trust sent Mr A for an abdomen and pelvis CT scan with contrast (a medical imaging test combining X-rays with a special dye (contrast) to create detailed, high-resolution pictures of the body) on 1 October 2022 and the results indicated no evidence of inguinal hernia or masses.

10. Throughout 2023 and 2024, Mr A had various screening examinations at the Trust, another NHS hospital and a private hospital. These confirmed the presence of a bilateral inguinal hernia and evidence of mesh migration.

11. Mr A told us he reported his concerns to the Trust in October 2022 but the Trust dismissed or ignored his concerns. The Trust first responded to his complaint in March 2023, stating it had received the complaint in January 2023. Mr A told the Trust he was unhappy with the response, and the Trust provided further responses in July 2023 and June 2024. The Trust’s final response signposted Mr A to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

12. In September 2024, a second surgeon performed another hernia surgery. This procedure resulted in an extended 12-day hospital stay and a subsequent emergency readmission to the Intensive Care Unit.

Issue 1 - Hernia repair surgery done incorrectly and requiring further hospitalisation.

14. The law says we should not consider complaints that are made to us more than a year after the person became aware of their concerns, unless we consider it is reasonable to do so.

15. We consider Mr A became aware of his concerns on 27 October 2021. This is because after surgery on that day the surgeon told him they had found no hernia but continued to insert the mesh for a hernia repair anyway. To be within our time limits, Mr A would have needed to complain to us by 27 October 2022. He sent his written complaint to us on 24 August 2025, which makes his complaint over two years and eight months outside our time limit.

16. Section 2.279-2.281 of our Service Model guidance sets out our approach on whether to exercise our discretion for complainants coming to us outside the 12-month time limit. This involves considering whether there are reasonable grounds for delay, including the complainant’s reasons for the delay and the time taken for local resolution to complete.

17. We asked Mr A to provide us with reasons why there was a delay in approaching PHSO with his complaint about this matter. He told us he had experienced difficulties getting a follow-up appointment post-surgery with The Consultant Surgeon. Mr A told us the Consultant Surgeon cancelled a total of seven appointments over the course of 2022 without a satisfactory explanation.

18. Mr A then complained about all the events he thought went wrong in his surgery and post-operative care to the Trust on 25 October 2022 and waited until 22 March 2023 to receive a first outcome letter.

19. Unhappy with the Trust’s response, he sent the Trust an escalation letter in mid-April 2023, to which the Trust responded on 31 July 2023. This letter invited him to a face-to-face local resolution meeting. Mr A declined the Trust’s invitation because he thought it would not have been helpful by that stage.

20. Still unsatisfied with the Trust’s responses, Mr A sent a further escalation letter eight and a half months later, on 15 April 2024. The Trust sent a final response on 28 June 2024, informing Mr A that it had now closed his complaint file as it had fully investigated and exhausted Mr A’s complaints. The Trust signposted Mr A to PHSO at this point.

21. We also note, in the final response letter, the Trust stated that its General Manager for General Surgery, Dr C, had called Mr A on 24 June 2024 to check whether he was happy with his treatment plan. Mr A informed Dr C he felt all his previous and ongoing concerns around his hernia repair surgery and complications had still not been fully addressed and resolved. The Surgery General Manager invited him in for a face-to-face meeting to discuss further. Mr A declined this second offer of a meeting.

22. Mr A first contacted us on 17 July 2025. We asked him to complete one of our complaint forms. Mr A returned this to us on 24 August 2025, 14 months after the date of the Trust’s final response letter which signposted to us.

23. During our telephone call on 16 April, Mr A told me he raised further concerns on the telephone to PALS staff a few days after the Trust’s final response. He says PALS told him they would look into it further, but never did. He says he contacted the Trust after a few weeks or months and they confirmed his complaint had been closed. It is unclear why Mr A raised further concerns with the Trust at this time, when the Trust had clearly directed him to PHSO.

24. We recognise Mr A had further surgery on 27 September 2024 and was very unwell post-operatively, requiring an admission to intensive care for two weeks. The Trust reviewed Mr A on 4 November 2024 and discharged him from the service, noting he was recovering well.

25. Mr A told us he also had a mini stroke and was diagnosed with cancer in 2025. He said these pressing matters led to time slipping away from him. We are sorry to hear about Mr A’s ill health.

26. We appreciate Mr A was experiencing pain and distress after his two hernia surgeries and ill health. We do not underestimate the impact this had on his physical and mental wellbeing. We acknowledge there are good reasons why Mr A could not complain to us from 27 September 2024 to 4 November 2024 and following his mini stroke and cancer diagnosis in early 2025.

27. Mr A also told us he chose to approach his local MP’s office in 2025 to get further help with his health concerns before coming to us. Whilst this is unrelated to his complaint to us, this does demonstrate an ability to start proceedings which are not very different from our own. We recognise Mr A has shown the capability to pursue MP escalation during a period in which he stated he had been unable to complain to us because other issues had taken priority in his life.

28. We find that Mr A’s ability to engage with MP’s office and regular contact with the Trust to find acceptable answers to his complaints until 2025 indicate he was capable of navigating important and difficult matters, so he would have also been able to bring his concerns to us sooner.

29. Specifically, we think Mr A could have reached out to us between 28 June 2024 and 27 September 2024, once the Trust’s complaint process had been exhausted and before his surgery and subsequent complications. Mr A could also have complained to us from 4 November to 31 December 2024, after his post-operative complications had eased and before he was diagnosed with a mini stroke and cancer at the beginning of 2025.

30. Mr A told us another factor that delayed him bringing the complaint to us is the upsetting feeling that his body had been deformed ever since his hernia surgery. As completely understandable as his reaction to what has happened is, we cannot see that has been a barrier to Mr A pursing his complaint. We can see Mr A was able to escalate his complaint to some of the Trust’s different departments, including PALS and the CEO’s office, on several occasions during 2022 and through to 17 July 2025.

31. For all reasons stated above, we are not persuaded there are strong reasons why Mr A brought his complaint to us outside our time limit. Whilst we acknowledge he had a very difficult time in his life that extended over a number of years, the reasons provided to us do not account for the periods when we believe Mr A could have come to us with the issues outlined in his complaint.

Issue 2 – Complaint about the Trust’s complaint handling process.

32. Section 3.10 of our Service Model Guidance sets out reasons why we may decide not to investigate a complaint further. This includes when an investigation would not be practical and would not reach a satisfactory conclusion. Section 2.212 also says we should take a proportionate approach to concluding cases when it is appropriate to do so.

33. As we have decided not to investigate Mr A’s complaint about the hernia repair surgery on 27 October 2021, we are not satisfied there are valid reasons to look into the secondary component of Mr A’s complaint either.

34. We do not consider it is proportionate to solely investigate the Trust’s complaint handling process. We also consider it would not be practical to investigate whether the complaint responses are appropriate when we have decided not to investigate Mr A’s complaint about the care provided to him.

Conclusion

35. Mr A’s complaint is out of time, and we have found the reasons provided to us are not enough to justify waiving our time limit.

36. We acknowledge Mr A faced a challenging time over 2022, when he tried to understand why the Trust was cancelling seven post-hernia surgery appointments; in September 2024, when he had a second hernia repair surgery with a different surgeon; and then, regrettably, once again in early 2025, when he suffered a mini stroke, and in May 2025, when he unfortunately received a diagnosis of cancer. We recognise these were all periods of time when complaining to PHSO might have been less of a priority for Mr A.

37. However, it appears there was a window of opportunity when he could have come to us between 28 June 2024 and 27 September 2024, and 4 November 2024 to 31 December 2024. Mr A could also have called our office for support with submitting his complaint or could have asked an advocate, friend or relative to help him. Taking all information and explanations available to us, we are not satisfied there are strong enough reasons to put the time limit aside.

38. We understand Mr A might disagree with this. We recognise how important this complaint is to him and this is not the outcome he might have hoped for. We also appreciate our decision will be disappointing to him, given how long he has been seeking satisfactory answers to his concerns.

39. We want to thank Mr A for his continued patience whilst we considered his complaint to us, and we also want to recognise that he has been in contact with the Trust and our organisation for a considerable amount of time. We assure him that, in reaching this decision, we have carefully considered all the matters he raised to us.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about his hernia repair surgery and follow up care at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) on 27 October 2021. We have decided this complaint falls outside of our time limit.

2. Following on from our decision on Mr A’s main complaint component, we do not consider it is proportionate or appropriate to look into the Trust’s complaint-handling process nor the timescales involved in resolving Mr A’s concerns. Therefore, we propose to take no further action.

3. We acknowledge Mr A has been through a difficult time and might disagree with our decision. We assure him, in reaching this decision, we carefully considered all the concerns he raised.