Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mr K complains about Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) regarding the care his wife, Mrs K, received in 2025.

4. Mr K says the Trust failed to action a referral made by his wife’s GP in February 2025 to investigate her heart condition. He says the Trust failed to act upon his efforts to chase up on this in the following weeks. He says it only recognised its errors and began to act when he raised the issue in person during an admission for his wife to have a chest scan at the start of May 2025.

5. Mr K says the Trust then took action too late to prevent his wife’s death, as she sadly died a day later of a stroke. He says his wife’s death would have been avoidable if her referral had been dealt with correctly, as her heart condition would have been managed and her risk of stroke would have been significantly reduced.

6. Mr K seeks a financial remedy in recognition of failings leading to his wife’s death.

9. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider it is not reasonable for them to do so. We do not base our decision on how successful legal action would be. Rather, we consider whether legal action is a reasonable option for someone to pursue.

10. We discussed this with Mr K to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he is hoping to achieve. We do this to help work out if we are the most suitable route to resolving a complaint.

11. Mr K told us he had approached a solicitor on a no win no fee basis and the solicitor had considered the case borderline. They were unwilling to take the case on that basis. Mr K explains he would be unable to afford to pursue legal action otherwise. We have established he has not, as yet, obtained alternative legal opinions.

12. The circumstances he describes in his complaint suggest a very serious injustice and one which could match the description of a clinical negligence claim. Consequently, any compensation linked to that claimed injustice from a successful claim would probably be at the high end of such sums. While we can achieve financial remedy in some situations, the Courts can, and often do, achieve much higher sums.

13. Mr K has explained he would be satisfied with us recommending financial remedy in line with what we can achieve. While this suggests we could deliver an outcome acceptable to him, we are mindful of still needing to consider if this is the best route available.

14. The time limits for taking legal action are strict and we are barred from considering any complaint that has been, or may be, subject to legal action. We must consider if us considering a complaint in more detail, which would take time, would result in a complainant losing the opportunity for a better outcome via the Courts.

15. We also believe it is important that, before we consider if we are the right way forward, that Mr K fully explores potential of a legal route first. We do not wish him to have any uncertainty later about the path not taken. We cannot give the complaint deeper consideration while there is still some question around this. Before we consider this complaint further, we also wish to be confident there is not a more suitable way forward for him.

16. Mr K has told us he has obtained advice from one solicitor. This suggests there may be a cause of action available, but that this particular solicitor was unwilling to take the case on as a no win no fee. This may not be the view of other solicitors. We need to reassure ourselves of what the consensus view would be, and that this is not simply one individual’s legal opinion.

17. It is possible other solicitors may take a different view. They may consider the case may be feasible to take on as a no win no fee basis, in which case he may take that option and not return to us. Potentially his enquiries may even confirm there is no cause of action at all and so confirm we are the sole avenue available.

18. In order to remove any doubt about his options, we think Mr K should obtain a view from at least another couple of solicitors now. If there is a possibility of a legal claim, this should establish with a reasonable degree of confidence what his options are. He may then make some informed decisions on how to proceed while he still has the opportunity. Should there not be one, we can be reapproached. This would then confirm to us there is no barrier, in terms of alternative legal routes, to us considering the complaint further. Currently that is still uncertain.

19. Should Mr K want to bring his complaint back to us, he should do so as promptly as he can. We have a time limit for looking at complaints, which is 12 months from the date the person was aware they had reason to complain. While his initial complaint has been raised with us in a reasonable timeframe, we still need to ensure there are no unaccounted-for delays later. Therefore, we ask that he returns to us without delay if he needs to after making legal enquiries.

20. We have considered the relevant factors and law. Mr K could potentially take legal action on the issues he has brought to us. We think it is reasonable that he explores this option. We have therefore decided not to consider the complaint further.

21. We recognise how important this matter is to Mr K and how the death of his wife, Mrs K, and the circumstances leading up to this sad event, have affected him and his family. We thank him for bringing this complaint to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mr K’s complaint about his wife’s care and decided not to look at the complaint further at this time. This is because we think Mr K may be able to take legal action on the matter he has brought to us, and potentially this may be the most appropriate way forward for him.

2. We were saddened to learn of the sad loss to Mr K of his wife, Mrs K. We note there have been accepted failings in the handling of his wife’s referral but no acceptance that these were linked in any way to her later death.