I received this reply from Joanne Miles 

26 January 2015

Our ref: REDACTED 

Dear Mr REDACTED, 

Thank you for your correspondence of 11 November and 9 December to Jeremy Hunt and for your correspondence of 15 December to the House of Commons, which was forwarded to the Department on 8 January. 

I am writing further to my letter of 15 January, and I apologise again for the delay in responding, and for any distress that this has caused you. As I indicated in my last letter, I am replying on behalf of the Secretary of State. 

The Department would like to thank you for your courage in writing and sharing your experience. I was very sorry to read of your experiences and of the impact these have had on your life. As you know, in June, the Secretary of State apologised on behalf of the Government and the NHS to all the victims who were abused by Savile in NHS institutions.  

Your letters of 11 November and 9 December set out the difficulties you encountered in the way your case was handled by the NHS, the police and by your solicitors, Slater Gordon LLP. Whilst the Department cannot comment on the actions of the police or your solicitors, as you know, in February 2014 the High Court approved a claims handling scheme as an alternative to litigation to provide compensation to persons who have been subjected to any sexual assault as a result of the actions of Savile. The parties to the scheme include the executor of Savile’s estate, the personal injury claimants and the Secretary of State for Health, who has delegated the management of the claims against him to the NHS Litigation Authority and its solicitors.  

I realise that you are disappointed that your claim for compensation has been rejected. Having made enquiries, I am advised by the NHS Litigation Authority that this was because the investigation team at Leeds General Infirmary did not accept the evidence that you provided to them and consider that your claim against the Secretary of State is unlikely to succeed. I do not know if the executor of Savile’s estate has responded to your claim yet. If your claim is also rejected by them then you may decide to issue a claim form in the High Court. However, you should seek independent legal advice on how to proceed because there may be cost consequences for issuing a claim. 

I would like to confirm that ensuring the proper treatment of those who give evidence is a crucial part of an effective and thorough investigative process.  When victims do speak out, they should be listened to and supported. As you may know, in December 2012, the Board of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust commissioned an independent investigation into matters relating to Jimmy Savile and the Trust.  The report of that investigation was published in June last year. I would like to stress that the investigation was independent of the Department of Health. As you have asked for your letters to be treated on a confidential basis, we have not contacted the Leeds General Infirmary investigation team about your concerns regarding how your allegation was dealt with. If you would like us to do so, could you please provide your consent to pass on your correspondence to the Leeds General Infirmary investigation team.     

You also asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss why your claim for compensation has been rejected. I am sorry that due to other diary commitments, the Secretary of State is unable to meet with you at this time and the Secretary of State is not personally involved in decisions in respect of individual claims. As I mentioned above, he has delegated the management of the claims against him to the NHS Litigation Authority and its solicitors, Capsticks, who will be writing to you.  

Unfortunately due to an administrative delay, the Department only received your email and letter of 15 December on 8 January. This was because your letter was to the House of Commons, who forwarded it to the Department of Health to respond as the relevant department to consider in the first instance. I was anxious to respond to the urgent request for psychiatric care, which was why I sent my initial letter of 15 January. 

As I understood in your letter, your complaint was based on the rejection of your claim, and I hope my explanation above of the claims handling scheme and the Secretary of State’s role was helpful. I am afraid there is no right to ask for an independent reconsideration of your entitlement under the scheme. However, as I mentioned above the scheme does not preclude any claim you may wish to make in the High Court, which would fall outside the scheme. However, if you are considering bringing any claim, I would urge you to seek independent legal advice.  

Additionally, as you may be aware, the Secretary of State asked Kate Lampard to oversee the NHS investigations and to provide assurance that those investigations were thorough and robust. The Department wants to ensure that all lessons are learned from any failings that allowed Jimmy Savile to abuse children and adults within the NHS. The Secretary of State asked Kate Lampard to report back to him on any themes emerging from all published NHS Savile investigations in relation to safeguarding, access and fund raising. Her report will also feed into the wider cross-Government work to help eradicate violence and sexual abuse against children and vulnerable people.  

As your letters were confidential I would also like to seek your consent to pass on your letters to Kate Lampard, on a confidential basis, to help inform her assurance role. Please let me know if you consent to this. 

Finally, and by way of reassurance, I should like to make you aware of other ongoing work to improve the quality of care in the NHS. One of the most important lessons learned from the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs hospital is the need for a consistent culture of safety and compassion, listening to people, whoever they are, with openness and candour. The health and care system is moving towards greater transparency about mistakes so that errors can be addressed and lessons learnt. A new statutory duty of candour places a legal duty on hospital, community and mental health trusts to inform patients of mistakes that have led to significant harm or death. The Department believes that this is one of the main responses to Francis and a significant step towards a more transparent and open NHS. A second new power is about ensuring strong and safe leadership in healthcare organisations. Under new regulations, all NHS board members will be required to undergo a Fit and Proper Person’s Test before they are appointed. Both these new powers came into force for NHS bodies in November and will apply to other providers from April. 

The Francis Inquiry report also recommended the introduction of new fundamental standards of safety and quality below which care should never fall. Following consultation, the Department has redesigned the requirements for registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and these will come into force in April 2015 for all providers.   

I am sorry to be sending what may be considered a disappointing reply, but I hope the information is helpful to you. 

Yours sincerely, 

Joanne Miles 

Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries

Department of Health