Yes, I'm quite prepared to believe that that will be what happens which is why I think I'll let the London Ambulance Service complaint quietly drop as I don't really want to be fighting on two fronts. As for the Pru I'm going to write to them narrowing the complaint to those areas where they haven't properly responded or haven't responded at all. I'm going to pass their letter to the Bupa care home to see how they feel about the implied accusation. I'm also going to request a meeting with the Trust (and take along Bupa if they're prepared to get involved). I've known my father's MP for a number of years and he has said that he'll help if the matter goes to the Ombudsman. Ideally I'd like to get him round the table with the Pru as well. What's bothering me the most is that the care home took photos of bruising on the day my father transferred to them. This means that the bruising took place either before, during or after the transfer. The hospital say they didn't notice anything before he was discharged. Someone is telling porkies and I suspect it's the hospital. Hopefully I will be able to get some advice on whether the photos can help to determine when the bruising is likely to have taken place. As for the pneumonia diagnosis, the letter simply says that it's something that can come on very quickly. They've ignored the fact that I reported breathing problems to them before my father was discharged. That particular point is going to be thrown back at them.

They've given me that assurance verbally. Needless to say I'll be asking for it in writing:suspicious:

Well, it's been a few weeks. I've had a reasonable letter from my father's MP wanting to see how I decide to deal with the complaints process. The NHS has responded to my letter. There are some reasonable bits in it but they've failed to respond to some key points and are blaming the care home for my father's bruising. I can see this matter going to the Ombudsman. I still haven't decided whether to pursue the London Ambulance complaint to the Ombudsman but I'm not sure that it will achieve much.

Finally! My insurer has just told me that the claimant's solicitors have withdrawn the claim because "they have been unable to obtain instructions from their client". Thanks for everyone's advice here.

I hate Santander as much as the next person and I don't want to sound unsympathetic but there's likely to be a valid debt here. I suspect that it isn't statute barred because of the FOS complaint. The reality is though that you fought to get the balance reduced and succeeded in doing so. If you are going to engage with the bank in this way, it is reasonable that you should expect to make some attempt to repay the remaining balance. Having said that, one option might be for you to call the FOS and ask them the question. It's probably not an uncommon situation.

And here it is. I know that it has personally identifiable data in it but as it's been released to the press I don't think it matters. Edit: Darn the scanner missed one of the pages in the main letter in the pdf. I've attached this as well.

That big red button I mentioned..... is getting pressed tomorrow. Detailed letter and backing correspondence will be going to my father's MP, my MP, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and my Dad's local newspaper. I'll upload the pdf here when it's been sent. Don't know if it will do any good but you never know.

The problem is that absolutely nothing seems to be happening. The claimant's solicitors take an extraordinary amount of time to get instructions from their client and yet have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever that my vehicle and/or me and/or my wife were involved in the "accident". I think DL are as bemused as I am peed off about this. I want to find a way to force their hand as I think they are being vexatious for reasons I've explained earlier in the thread.

The DL Claims Dept called me today and told me that they've spoken to the claimant's solicitors who have taken instructions. They are instructed to continue to pursue the matter. DL told me that there's now no chance that they'll be able to close the claim by the end of this month and, in theory, this could all drag on for 3 years. It's now been more than 6 months since the "accident" and I haven't seen a single shred of evidence to suggest that I or my vehicle were involved in it. In one sense I'm not bothered as I can prove where I was but, on the other hand, I am getting completely fed up with this continuing. Is there anything at all I can do to bring this matter to a head? I'm quite happy to pay a solicitor but I would like some idea of what they could do to help.

Nolegion, thank you for your comments. Unfortunately I was in Egypt at the time of the 999 call and it was made by my father's carer. A second call was made by a family friend shortly before the ambulance turned up. I could ask either of them to go down the DPA path but I would prefer to get the information myself. In all honesty though, I'm not too fussed about hearing the recordings as I pretty much know what was said. I was more concerned with the attempt to charge £50 for a computerised recording. It seems that the LAS not only failed to provide a remotely adequate service to my father but it thinks it appropriate to profiteer out of the information it holds about the incident. I will be drawing this to the attention of my father's MP and the media. It is an organisation characterised by monumental incompetence, evasiveness and mendacity. Thank you for pointing out the right to personally inspect original records. This may be a right I exercise when dealing with the complaint against the PRU.

I've had a further exchange of emails with the ICO. They've confirmed that the Access to Health Records Act is regulated by the Ministry of Health and not the ICO. I suspect that makes any complaint about the £50 charge pretty pointless.

I share your scepticism. At the end of the day, nothing is going to bring my father back. No amount of compensation would make up for what happened and what's the point of depriving the NHS of funds? All I am going to get from following the complaints process is an apology and details of how things have improved. If/ when I take these matters to the Ombudsman, all I am likely to get is a more detailed apology. In an ideal world I would be able to identify individuals who I could pursue to the GMC etc. In practice this is unlikely to be an option unless someone was guilty of gross negligence rather than just run of the mill poor service. Furthermore I can only begin to imagine the obstacles in the way of doing that. I agree that promises of change are pretty meaningless but all I can do is hope that maybe it gets a little better for someone. Like you I don't have much confidence in any of the formal processes and I am not going to completely knacker myself following them and being bitterly disappointed at the end. What I am going to do is go out of my way to embarass those responsible and make as big a noise as possible outside the complaints process. It might not get me anywhere but I think it's the most effective thing that I can do.

Interestingly the LAS are having problems providing this number. This is what they've said We do not yet have the information to hand. PED have been unable to provide the information requested and we are currently checking it out with our Emergency Operations Centre colleagues. It's not terribly difficult. All they need to do is to extract the 177 records into Excel, sort them by response time and tell me where my Dad was on the list. With the data I think I could do it in about 30 seconds.They have to have had access to the raw data to provide the initial response. I suspect that the result is rather embarassing. In any event this is the last piece of information I'm waiting for before I go nuclear with my complaint. If I don't get an answer in the next week, I'm pushing the big red button anyway.

I've had a not desperately helpful reply from the ICO regarding my Subject Access Request issue with the London Ambulance Service. They say that they're unable to help in respect of the £50 charge because, since my father passed away, the Data Protection Act no longer applies. I need to seek the records under the Access to Health Records Act. Looks like I'll have to start all over again on this issue.

Thanks for that. I'll contact them. I did report the matter through the Action Fraud website a couple of months ago but they gave me a crime reference number but haven't been in touch. Having said that, the website doesn't allow you to give much detail about what happened.

Possible but it looks less likely. It seems that the claimant's solicitor is unable to get instructions from their client. This merely increases my suspicion that the claim was an attempted [problem]. Moreover I'm far from satisfied that the claimant's solicitor took sufficient steps to validate the claim before firing off letters and threats. Of course I would be more certain of the position if Direct Line kept me properly informed and coped me correspondence that I've asked for three times in writing. I intend to take whatever steps are necessary to a)make sure that this matter does not affect my insurance premiums; b) establish why DL have dealt with the matter so poorly; and c) recover my costs from the claimant and/ or their solicitor and establish whether this was an attempted fraud.

Seems like even more reason to go after the third party and their solicitor. Previously I just wanted to do this to give some of their own medicine but it looks like I may have to do so to "clear" my name.

Thanks for that. I hadn't thought of it that way but it appeals to my evil side In their latest letter, DL say that they're expecting to close the claim at the end of February but they've said that before. Is it reasonable to assume that the closed claim will not have any impact on any future insurance quotations with them or anyone else or do I need to ask them to do anything specifically?

And this still rumbles on but nothing much has happened. Direct Line told me that the claimant/ their solicitors were asking for my details with a view to commencing proceedings against me as well as them. I asked them for copies of correspondence between them and the other side. Direct Line have decided to treat this as a subject access request and are demanding £10!! I guess I can't use CPR disclosure against them as Direct Line are on my side but it feels completely wrong to be charged to access data about potential litigation in this way.

I've now had a chance to look in detail at the replies to my complaint regarding my father's stays at Kings College Hospital (non-admission to specialist geriatric ward based on post code and loss of hearing aids). Surprisingly I'm happy with their response. They have increased their capacity to deal with elderly patients by opening a new unit and they reimbursed the costs of the hearing aids with an apology. They have provided some explanation of how my father was dealt with on the ward and say that they have changed procedures to avoid some of the problems that my father experienced. I still have an issue regarding his diagnosis but that is being dealt with under the complaint to the Pru. None of this gets away from the fact that my father was placed on an unsuitable ward and was treated poorly and this will be pointed out to my father's MP and the media in due course.

I've had an interesting response to my FOI to the London Ambulance Service. Between 7pm and 9pm on 6 September 2013 they had 177 category C incidents to which they sent an ambulance. Their average response time was 56 minutes compared to their target of 30 minutes. Included within these stats is their response to my father's 999 call. They took 101 minutes to respond to a 92 year old man with a head injury, i.e. 71 minutes more than their target and 45 minutes more than their average response time in the two hour period. I am going to ask them for one more piece of information- where my father's response time sits in the overall list. I would guess it must be in the worst 25% and possibly even in the worst 10%. On a different note, the LAS is arguing that their emergency call recording systems are partly manually based and this is why they are entitled to charge £50. I'm going to let the ICO be the judge of that.

OK that's fair enough. Thanks.

I suspect the answer to this question is 'no' but I would like confirmation. I made a travel claim last year on my RBS insurance. My wife and I flew to Egypt on Thursday arriving early evening. We had one day in the sun before I received a phone call the following evening as my father had been taken seriously ill. I spent most of the evening fretting and trying to make sure that an emergency ambulance got to him. We flew home the next day. We therefore had 2 nights out of 7 of our holiday. Is there any basis for arguing that the entire holiday was ruined and that the whole cost is claimable or are the insurers correct in applying a strict 5/7 curtailment. As an aside they have also disallowed the expensive telephone calls to arrange flights back to the UK as well.

I've had another reply from the London Ambulance Service regarding the 1hr 41mins it took them to send an ambulance in September. Some points: 1) I said that I was going to take this matter to an MP. The LAS response was "Members of Parliament have no formal role within the NHS complaints procedure and your recourse opportunity remains with an approach to the Health Service Ombudsman". Is this worthwhile in general? In other words could the Ombudsman, if he chose to do so, lambast the LAS for failing to provide an appropriate service or would he only look at whether they dealt with the complaint properly? 2) Apparently their failure to deal with the FOI request appropriately was unfortunate but that I have not been "significantly disadvantaged". I'm going to wait for a response to the FOI enquiry before I decide whether to take the matter to the ICS. 3) The LAS insist that £50 is payable for the 999 recording. I've checked this over the phone with the ICO and they say that it should be £10. I'm going to back to the LAS on this and making a formal complaint to the ICO if they continue to push the issue. 4) The LAS have offered me a meeting to discuss my concerns. I may well choose to have this meeting but I want to do so in the context of having involved MP(s) and taken the matter to the media first. I've a reply from Kings re my father's stay there in September. It's actually quite helpful in some ways but I'm still digesting it. In practice, it's likely to be mood music for the main complaint against the Princess Royal that went in just before Christmas.

I mentioned previously that I had approached a soliciitor regarding my father's stay at the Pru. They have now replied that they won't take the case. In their letter they mention a number of factors that could lead to that decision without being speciific about this particular case. I suspect that the main factor is that the likely financial compensation would be disproportionately small compared to the costs of bringing the action. Looking at the criteria for awarding damages, they emphasise prognosis and financial dependency. Given that my father was 92 and in poor health, he would probably only have lived for a few months beyond his stay in the hospital even if they had behaved perfectly. If my interpretation is correct then it partly explains why the elderly are treated badly by the NHS. If they know that they can't be sued, they know that they can get away with substandard and unprofessional behavior. It also leaves families in a difficult situation. They can proceed to bring the action on a fee paying basis but the costs are crippling. Altervatively they can go down the complaint path but without paying for advice, they may struggle to ask the right questions and understand the answers. Perhaps most importantly the NHS knows that it can tie complainants up in knots and deter even the persistent. For those who ask really awkward questions, I have read that they are quite happy to declare them vexatious and refuse to deal with them. Having said all of that, I am planning to press on. I'm don't know whether I should get a second legal opionion. The first solicitor, Irvin Mitchell, has quite a good reputation. Does anyone know of another reputable firm I could approach? Failing that I am going to submit my complaint to the Pru and copy it to a couple of MPs. I'm also going to compile a full dossier of my father's treatment at the hands of the NHS and press release it even though it is incomplete. If I can't get them into a court of law, I'll get them into the court of public opinion.