Public Body Complaint & Failure to Act Solicitors — NHS Complaints, LGO, Ombudsmen & Judicial Review of Inaction

To complain about NHS care: (1) submit a formal complaint to the NHS body (hospital trust, GP practice, or ICB) — they must acknowledge within 3 working days and respond within a timeframe agreed with you (typically within 25 working days for complex complaints); (2) if you are not satisfied with the response, you can complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue. The PHSO investigates service failure and maladministration — including clinical quality failures, failures to follow NICE guidance, failures of communication, failures to obtain informed consent, and failure to investigate patient safety incidents. The PHSO can recommend: financial remedy (including compensation for pain and suffering, loss, and psychological harm); service improvements; and learning. The PHSO's remedies are recommendations — but NHS bodies almost always implement them. A solicitor prepares the PHSO submission and advises on whether a civil medical negligence claim is also available.

Where a public body has a clear statutory duty to take action — for example, to carry out a Care Act assessment, to process a homelessness application, to enforce a planning breach, or to investigate a complaint — and has failed to do so despite being given a reasonable opportunity, JR of the failure to act is available. The remedy is a mandatory order (formerly "mandamus") requiring the body to perform its statutory duty. The Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review requires a Letter Before Claim giving 14 days to respond — which often prompts compliance without the need for court proceedings. Where the failure is urgent (for example, a care need that is immediately putting the person at risk), the Administrative Court can grant interim relief or hear the case on an expedited basis. A solicitor identifies the statutory duty, issues the LBC, and applies for the mandatory order by JR.

Yes — both the PHSO and the LGSCO can recommend financial remedy where the public body's failure caused injustice. PHSO financial remedies range from a few hundred pounds for administrative failures to tens of thousands of pounds for failures causing serious physical harm or long-term care impacts. LGSCO financial remedies are typically smaller — but significant in community care and SEN cases where the failure resulted in loss of provision. Both sets of remedies are recommendations — public bodies almost always comply. Where the public body's failure also constitutes clinical negligence or breach of statutory duty, a separate civil claim for damages (beyond the ombudsman's recommended sum) may be available. A solicitor advises on the interaction between the ombudsman complaint and a civil damages claim — and maximises the combined financial remedy available.

A mandatory order (formerly "mandamus") is a court order requiring a public body to carry out its legal duty — for example, to assess a person's care needs, to process an application, or to consider a complaint. It is available in JR where: (1) the public body has a clear statutory duty to act; (2) the body has clearly failed to carry out that duty; and (3) the body has been given a reasonable opportunity to comply (typically through the Pre-action LBC). The mandatory order is one of the most powerful remedies in public law — it compels the public body to act and exposes it to contempt of court proceedings if it fails to comply. Where the statutory duty is clear and the failure to act is obvious, the pre-action LBC alone is often enough to prompt compliance. A solicitor identifies the statutory duty, issues the LBC, and applies for the mandatory order by JR where the LBC fails to produce compliance.

The choice between ombudsman complaint and judicial review depends on: (1) urgency — where the failure is causing immediate harm, JR (with interim relief) is faster; ombudsmen take months to investigate; (2) the nature of the complaint — ombudsmen are better at systemic failures (maladministration, delay, poor communication); JR is better at clear legal errors (applying the wrong legal test, acting outside statutory powers); (3) the remedy sought — ombudsmen provide financial remedy and service improvement; JR provides quashing orders, mandatory orders, and HRA damages; (4) cost — ombudsman complaints are free; JR is expensive (though legal aid is available in some community care cases). In many cases, both routes are pursued: the solicitor issues the Pre-action LBC (which often resolves the matter), while simultaneously registering the ombudsman complaint. A solicitor advises on the most effective sequencing of the available routes.