At the anniversary of the meeting with the ombudsman in Leeds, it was agreed that another meeting would be appropriate. I travelled with my friend to London to meet with the team in the ombudsman’s headquarters in Millbank Tower, Westminster.

My MP Fabian Hamilton was present in the meeting and we started at 10:00 AM on Monday. First, the ombudsman’s team and Fabian commented on how much better I looked, much more relaxed, I explained I had completed the course of psychiatric treatment and I was much better.

The ombudsman’s team had an air to them we had not previously witnessed, they had, just the Friday before, received the documents from the DOH legal team, they had not had chance to fully scrutinise the documents or to check if they had received all the documents they had requested. However, they had read through these and now advised that.

1.      The DOH was now cooperating with them.

2.      They could not discuss the content as it was subject to client confidentiality.

3.      They were now confident of concluding my complaint in a reasonable time Frome (this was the third year).

The team went on to give me hope that they were now considering the actions for the DOH and their reliance upon the meeting with the Speaking Out inquiry, a third party, to determine victim’s civil liability claims.

They may now consider instructing the DOH to rerun the process, they did say however that the DOH legal team was threatening to sue the ombudsman through the courts depending upon the determinations they reached.

This statement led me, Fabian, and my colleague to believe that the ombudsman’s report was likely to conclude soon and, in my favour, that if provided with the opportunity, and support in a second meeting to determine my victim status, this would be a very different meeting and may overturn the original decision.

Fabian then spoke on my behalf; he outlined his outrage at the way in which I had been misled into attending a meeting, then mistreated by the Speaking Out inquiry, who had failed to record large parts. and subsequently my claim had been denied by the DOH.

He advised the ombudsman that he had been a politician for longer than most and was adept at reading people in his surgery, he went on to say that he thought he could spot someone who was not telling the truth, and assured the ombudsman’s team that in his opinion, I was completely truthful and that he believed my story entirely, he was assured I had been a genuine victim of Savile as a child.

I took the opportunity to thank the team for their difficult and complex work to date un bringing the DOH to a point of cooperation and persuading the DOH legal team to release the documents they needed. However, after the meeting my colleague had his reservations, he noticed several issues with the ombudsman’s team and their behaviour in the meeting, it was his opinion that their statement regarding legal action expected over their determination was of concern.

It was already in the public domain that the DOH had spent a vast sum on lawyers to defend the NHS against claims by Savile victims, this had reduced the number receiving compensation from hundreds down to tens, and he suspected that, should the ombudsman endeavour to force the DOH to rerun the meeting process, that this would re-open the flood gates of victims they had denied.

He believed this was why the ombudsman was threatened with high court action, to focus the ombudsman on the possibility of an awfully expensive legal battle in high court to prevent that can of worms being opened, and the inevitable extra cost, not to mention the loss of faith from the public in the process.

Months passed with no real communication from the ombudsman.