Source · PHSO decision

South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

Ref: P-005672 Statement Decision date: 29 June 2026 Jurisdiction: NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries

AI-generated complaint summary

Ambulance service falsely stated an ambulance had been dispatched for her unwell child, causing a loss of trust.

Find the original decision on the PHSO website ↗ · Reference P-005672

Topics and themes

1 PHSO issue

PHSO issue classifications

  • Communication

Outcome

AI summary
Complaint closed; the ombudsman found no indication that the Trust needed to take further action to remedy its acknowledged mistakes.

The following sections reproduce the PHSO decision. First-person wording refers to the Ombudsman.

The complaint

3. Miss A complains that on 15 May 2024 South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust told her it had dispatched an ambulance when it had not done so.

4. Miss A says she has lost trust in the ambulance service and worries about using it in future.

5. Miss A would like the Trust to make service improvements and pay compensation of £1,200.

Findings

8. On 15 May 2024 Miss A called 111 and 999 when her child was unwell. She says that when she called 999 the call handler told her an ambulance would be sent to her urgently.

9. She says that she was unaware that no ambulance had been dispatched and if she had known she would have taken her child to A&E. We are pleased to note that, in the end, Miss A’s child was not seriously unwell.

10. We have listened to the call. The call handler did make Miss A aware that an ambulance had been dispatched and that there were no delays reported.

11. The Trust reviewed the call itself and explained that during the call the handler was correct in saying that an ambulance would be dispatched and says it would have been a category 2. The Trust has acknowledged the call handler was still receiving coaching and gave incorrect information about the length of time an ambulance was likely to take.

12. It confirmed that the call handler had since received additional training to and feedback to prevent the error being made in future.

13. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found the Trust has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

14. Our NHS complaint standards say an effective complaint handling system enables staff to give a fair and balanced account of what happened and the conclusions they have reached. Organisations openly identify instances when things have gone wrong, or where services have had an unfair impact, and take responsibility for these. They make sure staff can offer a range of ways to put things right for the individual. Staff also look at what action will be taken to learn from the experience to continuously improve services and help support staff.

15. Wherever possible, staff explain why things went wrong and identify suitable ways to put things right for people. Staff give meaningful and sincere apologies and explanations that openly reflect the impact on the people concerned.

16. In this instance the Trust recognised it had not given Miss A had the correct information and it apologised for this. It also recognised where and how the error was made and provided additional training for the individual concerned.

17. Miss A is also seeking a financial remedy for what happened. Our guidance on financial remedy is a framework to help us consider whether compensation is appropriate to put right the impact of any mistakes. The mistakes the Trust has acknowledged led to an injustice that lasted for up to one day. As the incident that occurred only lasted for one day, and there is no indication of an impact beyond that, we would consider this as level 1 injustice on our severity of injustice scale which is part of our financial remedy guidance. These will usually be injustices typically where the effect on the individual is of short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact. We would generally consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for level 1 injustice.

18. In summary we consider the actions of the Trust to make improvements and the apology it has issued is suitable to put right this aspect of the complaint, and we will not proceed further with it.

19. We do not underestimate how unsettling this experience was for Miss A, especially as she was trying to get help for her child.

PHSO decision

1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We recognise how worrying this situation was for Miss A. She was seeking urgent help because her child was unwell.

2. We have decided to take no further action on her complaint because we have seen no indication there is anything further the Trust should do to put right the mistakes it made.

Decision details

Reference
P-005672
Decision type
Statement
Jurisdiction
NHS in England
Decision date
29 June 2026
Outcome
Closed After Initial Enquiries
Responsible body
South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

Source links