Unacceptable delays in prostate cancer care at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board

Date of article: 18/03/2026

Daily News of: 20/03/2026

Country:  United Kingdom - Wales

Author:

Article language: en

Our new Public Interest report published today finds delays in scans and treatment more than tripled waiting times and likely contributed to a patient’s cancer becoming more advanced.

 

The Complaint

We launched an investigation after Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received following his prostate cancer diagnosis.

In particular, we considered delays in Mr C receiving a PSMA PET scan – an advanced imaging test that uses a radioactive tracer to identify and visualise prostate cancer cells.

The investigation also considered the delay in Mr C receiving hormonal therapy and its potential impact on the progression of his cancer.

The Findings

We found that, whilst the care and treatment Mr C received overall followed the NHS Wales National Pathway for Prostate Cancer, there were significant delays at key stages.  As a result, Mr C waited more than three times longer than he should have before his treatment began.

A biopsy indicated that a PSMA PET scan was appropriate for Mr C. However, the scan did not take place for almost four months. We found this delay unacceptable and a clear service failure.

The investigation also examined whether Mr C should have received hormonal therapy sooner. It found that it was clinically appropriate not to start hormonal therapy before the PSMA PET scan was known, as this could have affected interpretation of the scan. However, because the scan itself was significantly delayed, Mr C’s hormonal therapy was also delayed unnecessarily. This was an injustice for Mr C, leaving him waiting more than 180 days from the point of suspicion to definitive treatment.

We were further concerned about the Health Board’s failure to recognise the delays when responding to Mr C’s complaint. In our report Groundhog Day 2, the office highlighted that poor complaint handling can compound the sense of injustice for complainants and make pursuing concerns exhausting.

Mr C’s case is a clear example. Escalating his complaint further must have been especially difficult given his diagnosis and ongoing treatment. Whilst complaint handling was not formally within the scope of the investigation, we recommended that the Health Board reviews its handling of Mr C’s complaint in line with its legal Duty of Candour, particularly given its failure to acknowledge clear service failures.

Commenting on the report, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, Michelle Morris, said:

“This is the fourth report issued over 9 years by my office about delayed prostate cancer management at this Health Board. In previous reports, we urged the Health Board to fully commit to change and improvement so that men would not need to bring similar concerns to my office again.”

“It is therefore bitterly disappointing to be reporting once again on failings in the same area. Previous recommendations have not been fully complied with, and the Health Board’s own improvement plan - agreed with the Royal college of Surgeons - has not been completed. A majority of the actions remain outstanding, despite my office having sight of this plan following our last public interest report.”

“The Health Board cited staff sickness and capacity issues as reasons for the delays - explanations that have also been given in previous investigations by my office. However, these reasons do not fully explain why Mr C waited more than 180 days from the point of suspicion to definitive treatment.”

“On the balance of probabilities, these delays more likely than not contributed to Mr C’s cancer being more advanced. The uncertainty this creates will sadly be an enduring injustice for Mr C and his family.”

Our Recommendations

We made a number of recommendations, all of which Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board accepted. These included:

  • Apologising to Mr C for the delays and the injustice caused.
  • Sharing the report with the clinicians involved in Mr C’s care so the findings can be considered and discussed, and providing feedback to us on any improvements identified.
  • Auditing patients who have required a PSMA PET scan in the last two years to assess waiting times between the point of suspicion and the start of treatment, and taking appropriate action to ensure patient care aligns with national guidance.
  • Reviewing its local prostate cancer pathways and benchmark it against the National Optimal Pathway and those used by other health boards in Wales, including formal audits before and after any changes.
  • Reviewing Mr C’s case under its legal Duty of Candour to determine how his cancer pathway exceeded 180 days, and reporting the findings to its Quality and Patient Safety and Audit Committees and include its findings in its Annual Report on the Duty of Candour.
  • Reminding complaint handling staff of the need for in-depth and robust investigations.
Read more

Scottish Welfare Fund update - March 2026

Date of article: 18/03/2026

Daily News of: 20/03/2026

Country:  United Kingdom - Scotland

Author:

Article language: en

During February we 

  • responded to 79 enquiries
  • made 64 decisions
    • 16 community care grants
    • 48 crisis grants
  • upheld 8 (50%) of community care grants and 14 (29%) of crisis grants
  • signposted an additional 61 applicants to other sources of assistance. Of these, 61% were calling us instead of their local council in error. A further 30% told us they were experiencing accessibility barriers when trying to contact their council, such as the lack of a freephone number, difficulties applying online or problems with council phone lines. The remaining callers got in touch too early in the process and were directed back to their local council or other organisations
  • received 11 enquiries from council staff seeking advice.

Engagement 

We continued our engagement programme this month to promote awareness and accessibility of the review process, meeting with one council’s SWF team and a local Tackling Poverty team. We also delivered bespoke training for another local authority, focusing on key areas of the SWF guidance.

Case studies

Consideration of children's rights

C applied for a community care grant for flooring for their home. They have weekly shared care of their pre‑school children, and the exposed concrete floors posed a risk of injury, potentially affecting their care arrangements.

The council refused the application, assessing that the qualifying criteria for an award were not met. C’s representative then asked the SPSO to review the decision not to award carpets and vinyl.

We reviewed the council’s file and engaged with C’s representative. C was receiving support from a family centre and participating in an intensive mental health programme related to chronic pain and PTSD. There were concerns that shared care could be withdrawn because of the risk to the children if they fell on the concrete floors.

Taking account of ‘Children whose rights under the UNCRC Act may be impacted’ under Annex C of the guidance, we assessed that the qualifying criteria relating to exceptional pressure were met. We changed the council’s decision and awarded carpets for the sitting room and two bedrooms, as these met the high‑priority criteria.

Recommendations

  • Award carpets for the two bedrooms and sitting room.

Feedback for the council

  • The council did not fully consider the impact on children’s rights under the UNCRC when assessing vulnerability.

 

You can find more case studies in the searchable case directory on our website.

Read more

Families due to receive long-overdue remedies after Leicester City Council reverses refusal of Ombudsman recommendations

Date of article: 12/03/2026

Daily News of: 17/03/2026

Country:  United Kingdom - England

Author:

Article language: en

Two families left without proper housing support by Leicester City Council will now be offered the financial remedies recommended by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, after the council reversed its previous decisions refusing to pay.

The Ombudsman has today published a Further Report on one of the cases, calling on the council to reconsider its refusal to pay a symbolic amount of £3,525 to a man and his family. This is to remedy the impact of the council’s actions which left the family in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than the law allows.

The Further Report must be considered at a high decision-making level, and the council are required to formally respond to the Ombudsman. The council were informed in advance of the intention to publish a further report, in-line with the Ombudsman’s established procedure, and has now told the Ombudsman it will pay the outstanding remedy.

The council has also said it will now pay a remedy of £1,750, in a similar case in which a woman and her family, who had fled domestic violence, were placed in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than the law allows. The council had previously refused to pay the remedy following a Report and Further Report on the case by the Ombudsman.

Mrs Amerdeep Clarke, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

"I welcome the council’s change of position, which finally recognises the trauma these families have experienced, and I hope this may give them some closure to the issues.

“The combined total of £5,275 is a modest acknowledgement of what the families experienced. As we have previously stated, all our recommendations are based on the particular injustices found in each case – we don’t punish councils or set precedents for other investigations.”

Read more

High Court refuses Charity Commission judicial review challenge

Date of article: 13/03/2026

Daily News of: 13/03/2026

Country:  United Kingdom

Author:

Article language: en

On Friday 6 March, the High Court refused permission for the judicial review sought by the Charity Commission in relation to two investigations we completed in March 2024. PHSO investigated complaints about how the Commission handled concerns regarding serious safeguarding issues of sexual exploitation and child sex abuse at two separate charities.

Our investigations uncovered several failings, including around the Commission’s decision-making and its communication with the complainants, Mr Murray and Miss Hall. We recommended that the Commission apologise, provide financial redress to both complainants and take action to stop the same failures from being repeated. This included reviewing its handling of these two cases and the original decisions, as well as its risk assessment and communication guidance.  

In March 2025, after failing to reach agreement with the Commission on compliance with our recommendations, PHSO took the rare decision to lay the reports before Parliament so that Parliament could hold the Commission to account. The Commission issued legal proceedings to prevent the reports from being laid. Following a successful motion in the House of Commons, the reports were laid in September 2025. 

The Court recognised that our original findings identified failings with the Commission’s decision-making. It also acknowledged that our recommendation for the Commission to undertake a review of its decision was intended to remedy the injustice experienced by Mr Murray and Miss Hall. 

In our submission to the Court, we said that the Commission needed to take into account relevant considerations (which can include allegations of inappropriate behaviour) when making an assessment of risk in a safeguarding context.  The judgment was clear that a criminal conviction is not a necessary condition to disqualification or, therefore, to regulatory action by the Commission. The Judge accepted PHSO’s submissions and found the claim to be academic and legally unarguable.

In its judgment, the Court also made clear that the outcome of the Commission’s review of the handling of Miss Hall’s case needed to be communicated to her.  

The Court also recognised that PHSO’s role is to hold public bodies to account, including where organisations fail to comply with our recommendations. It confirmed that our decision to lay reports does not require a new complaint of maladministration in addition to the finding of failings as part of the original investigation.   

A PHSO spokesperson said: 

One of our roles is to hold public bodies to account, acting on behalf of Parliament. This is an important principle to uphold, and the Court’s decision supports that principle by refusing the Charity Commission's request for permission to judicially review. 

 

“Our reports were laid before Parliament after failing to reach agreement on compliance with the Charity Commission. 

 

“At the heart of what might seem like a matter of process are two people, Miss Hall and Mr Murray, who have suffered significant injustice. Securing resolution for the complainants remains the priority, alongside making sure the lessons identified in our investigations are implemented. 

 

 “While the Charity Commission has made some changes after our original reports, we hope the Commission will now focus on working constructively to fully comply with our recommendations and provide the assurance that the public are entitled to expect.” 

Read more

Health Board’s failures in cataract care lead to avoidable sight loss

Date of article: 11/03/2026

Daily News of: 13/03/2026

Country:  United Kingdom - Wales

Author:

Article language: en

New Public Interest report issued today by us has found that failures in the management of a patient’s cataract – including missed tests, cancelled appointments and inadequate follow-up – contributed to avoidable sight loss at Hywel Dda University Health Board.

 

We launched an investigation after Mrs C complained that the standard of care provided to her mother, Mrs B, for management of a cataract in her right eye was not clinically appropriate or timely.

The investigation found that the Health Board failed to respond appropriately to advice it requested from a Second Health Board regarding Mrs B’s care.

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, the Health Board did not demonstrate that it considered contemporaneous public health guidance when assessing the risks to Mrs B.

When routine services resumed, the subsequent clinical review of Mrs B was inadequate. Relevant tests were not undertaken, a letter to her GP about medication lacked sufficient detail, and an opportunity to refer her for further treatment at an earlier stage was missed.

Mrs B also experienced numerous cancelled clinic appointments during the period under investigation, which contributed to delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Commenting on the report, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, Michelle Morris, said:

“This report identifies serious service failings. Mrs B, who was already blind in her left eye, is now also significantly sight-impaired in her right eye. Her family have described the profound and lasting impact this has had on their lives.

We found no evidence that the Health Board assessed the risk to Mrs B when cancelling clinic appointments, and earlier opportunities to identify the seriousness of her condition and refer her for further treatment were missed. These are failings from which other health boards must learn.”

Recommendations

We issued a number of recommendations, all of which were accepted by Hywel Dda University Health Board, including:

  • A formal apology to Mrs B and Mrs C.
  • A payment of £4,500 to reflect the failings in care, plus £300 for the time and trouble involved in pursuing the complaint.
  • Reminders to clinicians about the importance of reviewing previous clinical correspondence, particularly where patients have been lost to follow‑up, and of making timely referrals for specialist care.
  • A reminder to the clinician that reviewed Mrs B of the importance of keeping sufficiently detailed patient records and clinic letters.
  • A review of policies for managing outpatient clinic appointments to ensure patients with the greatest clinical need are prioritised when clinics are wholly or partially cancelled.
 

Read the full report here

Read more

Active facets

Link to the Ombudsman Daily News archives from 2002 to 20 October 2011