I reviewed the DOH complaints procedure one last time looking for anything that would permit me to continue the complaint. I discovered that once my MP had been involved, I could ask him to support a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Their website starts with the words “We make final decisions on complaints that have not been resolved by the NHS in England and UK government departments and other public organisations.” And “We do this fairly and without taking sides. Our service is free.”

At last, this appeared to be a path I could take, anonymously and without great financial risk. I wrote to Fabian Hamilton and he immediately agreed to support my complaint with the ombudsman.

Initially the Ombudsman requested copies of documents I had sent to my MP Fabian Hamilton, so I emailed everything I had including the letters to Jeremy Hunt MP and Kate Lampard.

I received a reply advising that in their opinion I had a valid case for the DOH to answer, but they required more documents, so I emailed everything I had, including my statement to the police, the police notification that four crimes had been recorded due to my testimony, my statement to Liz Dux, my copy of the interview with the Speaking Out inquiry and emails between myself and Liz Dux in-between.

Months elapsed, but I finally received notice that the Ombudsman had accepted my complaint and would now be requesting documents from the DOH legal team.

I was provided with a document detailing the areas the Ombudsman could investigate in their capacity, this was surprisingly short, however it did include an agreement to investigate the way my claim had been processed.

Surprisingly, the ombudsman advised that unlike the financial ombudsman, should they find evidence that supported my claim, they did not have the power to insist that the DOH put me back into the financial position I would have been, had they accepted my claim. At best any compensation would be awarded to reflect the mistakes they may uncover.

A year passed, during which the Ombudsman changed to a new person Rob Behrens CBE, the member of the team dealing with my complaint left and I was back too square one. It was suggested that a meeting would be beneficial, and I booked a small hotel meeting room in Leeds for the date agreed.

A close friend and confidant had become involved at this point, he knew what had happened and had been given access to the documents and I had discussed all aspects of the case with him, we both attended the meeting, and when my case handler arrived, she was with her boss, a male employee within the ombudsman service. Our first thoughts were that he was supporting my case handler to tell me that my complaint would not be upheld.

However, the two representatives from the ombudsman sat and listened to my story for over two hours, you could tell they had never had a complaint of this nature before, and that neither would ever forget the meeting. They asked a lot of questions, and for once, they took copious notes.

They went on to say that the delay was from the DOH who had not yet provided the documents they required to investigate my case, they stated that the DOH legal team were claiming client confidentiality as the reason not to supply the documents and were refusing to accept that they were legally obliged to assist the Ombudsman.

The DOH legal team took the view that they could reject the Ombudsman’s requests on the grounds that they considered the witness accounts of Savile’s behaviour as just that, witness accounts, not crimes. Despite the police recording these as crimes committed by Savile posthumously, as such, because they claimed that these were not crimes, they did not have the same level of responsibility to the Ombudsman to cooperate, what an arrogant standpoint.

When quizzed on this point, and why they had allowed a year to elapse waiting for the DOH legal team to comply with their request, they were visibly embarrassed, stated that my former case handler, who had now left, was not senior enough to handle my case and that they, the serious cases team, had now taken over my complaint and guaranteed rapid progress going forward.

Pushed harder, they went on to say that their chief executive Amanda Campbell had taken a personal interest in the case and it was her who would be filing a new demand for the documents held by the DOH legal team.

At the end of the meeting, we parted without being any further ahead, the ombudsman’s case handlers now needed to discuss the case to determine what, if anything, they could do. The final departing agreement was that they would keep me up to date with my claims progress.

I received an updated document from the Ombudsman containing a record of the meeting, which was accurate and agreed the new scope of my complaint.

They could and intended to discover how the DOH legal team had determined that my claim was to be denied. It confirmed that the Ombudsman, having the same powers of a high court judge, could demand the DOH legal team comply and release their documents, thereby overruling the claim of client confidentiality.

At last, I was starting to get somewhere, it now looked positive that my complaint would be scrutinised in full and that I may at some point understand why my claim had been denied.

I was still suffering from inability to sleep, I was constantly mulling over the whole ghastly story in my mind, writing down anything I could recollect to form around a hundred pages of notes. I would wake at all hours and run the whole story through my mind, re-enacting the stages as I recalled them, looking for where I went wrong, considering how I might one day resolve matters with my sister and my parents, wondering if my sister really did believe her stories, she had discussed about me which were, in my opinion, an obvious cry for help. Wondering if I should pursue my fellow directors for the fraud they committed, and the bank who permitted the signature to be changed, then took security for the loan claiming the intellectual property, patents, and registered designs, to secure a loan which was already secured by the Government.

My wife was delighted when the first appointment for psychiatric care arrived.

Months passed without any updates so I wrote to the Ombudsman and received a few non-committal words email reply, it said that things were complicated and there was no update they could provide at this time.

More months elapsed with no update, so I wrote to Amanda Campbell, the chief executive and deputy Ombudsman with a list of facts, she replied in a much longer email advising that the DOH were still refusing to cooperate with the Ombudsman, that the certainty of the Ombudsman’s powers to demand the release of the documents and cooperation was now receding as more complex arguments had been developed by the DOH legal team, she did however state that she had a meeting booked with the DOH legal team to discuss my case in a few weeks’ time and hoped to progress my complaint soon.

She then went on to advise that the DOH legal team would be happy to have a meeting with me to discuss my case, despite refusing to meet me some years before at my request.

I declined to have a face-to-face meeting with them as I could not see how this could help, when they were refusing to cooperate with the Ombudsman.