Police force entry to patient's home after Trust provides wrong information

What happened

Miss B had been feeling unwell and called a friend to say she was suffering from headaches and weakness in her left arm and leg. Miss B then went to A&E at her local hospital where she was triaged and sent to the Urgent Care Centre (which is located at the Trust but run by another organisation). She waited more than four hours to be seen by a doctor and was then sent home.

While Miss B was at the Urgent Care Centre, her friend became worried because she could not contact her and she called the police. The police telephoned the A&E department to check whether Miss B was there and an A&E staff member told the police that she was not there. When Miss B arrived home, she found the police in the process of forcing entry to her home.

Her front door, which was a double–fronted 1930s style solid oak door with a stained glass window, was very badly damaged and later had to be completely replaced.

What we found

We partially upheld this complaint.

When the police contacted the Trust, it was the Trust's responsibility to check not just its own premises but also the Urgent Care Centre. The Trust should have had a clear protocol in place to make sure that this happened and it was a service failure that no such protocol was in place. The Trust also gave contradictory information about its procedures to Miss B and the police in the course of her complaint.

However, this service failure was not the sole cause of the injustice to Miss B. During the call between the police and the Trust's A&E staff member, the A&E staff member said that Miss B was not there and had last attended the previous April.

She then said that she was going to check something else but before she had a chance to do so, the police asked for Miss B's date of birth. The A&E staff member agreed to call the police control room on another number with that information and the call ended with her stating that she would call right back.

It is not clear from the information we have whether that further call was made but four minutes later, the police took the decision to force entry to Miss B's property.

The actions of the Trust were not the only factor leading to the damage to Miss B's door. However, the Trust's service failure contributed to the distress she experienced and it needed to do more to put that right. Its complaint handling had been poor.

Miss B's insurance company had covered the cost of replacing the door and the stained glass window. It was not reasonable to recommend that the Trust reimburse the insurance company, or that it provide redress specifically to cover the possibility of an increased premium.

Putting it right

The Trust agreed to apologise to Miss B for failing to have a clear protocol in place at the time of these events and for giving contradictory information about its procedures.

It agreed to pay Miss B £300 in recognition of the distress she experienced as a result of its failings.

The Trust also agreed to provide a copy of its new policy for checking both A&E and the Urgent Care Centre in future, plus an explanation of how it is monitoring this new system to ensure it is effective.