Harbor London Ltd

Health and care · Independent healthcare provider

Pin Request correction

First report 21 Feb 2018•Latest report 21 Feb 2018

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Harbor London Ltd linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Addcounsel Limited, now represented here by Harbor London Ltd.

    Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Alan MacDONALD · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Alan MacDonald was admitted to the Nightingale Hospital on 9 August 2017 after being assessed as too unwell for community care, and was discharged on 23 August after an improvement. He was found hanging at home after the bank holiday weekend, and the inquest determined that he died by suicide. Concerns included continued Addcounsel visits and charges while he was an inpatient, and the failure to address his expressed financial worries or highlight potential NHS care.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Harbor London Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to close Addcounsel files when patients require inpatient admission

    Wider context from the report

    “Addcounsel’s clinical director, a non medically qualified counsellor, continued to visit Mr MacDonald while Mr MacDonald was being treated as an inpatient at the Nightingale by a consultant psychiatrist. The clinical director told me that he was in a therapeutic type relationship, but he was not treating Mr MacDonald or giving him therapy. In addition to the psychiatrist consultations, therapy was available at the Nightingale. The daily Addcounsel visits inevitably entailed further cost to Mr MacDonald, as well as the additional cost of going through Addcounsel to the Nightingale in the first place, without giving treatment in return. I understand that this issue has been addressed by Addcounsel, following Mr MacDonald’s death. I was told at inquest that in future, when Addcounsel recognises that a patient is too unwell to be treated in the community and requires admission, Addcounsel’s file will be closed. In this way, a patient will not pay for visits at which no treatment is being offered. One of Mr MacDonald’s worries, expressed at consultation with his psychiatrist when Addcounsel’s clinical director was present, did centre on his financial situation. He was very anxious that his money was running out and he was not earning while he was in hospital. (After discharge from hospital, he told a friend that he had paid Addcounsel £20,000, and was not going to pursue follow up treatment.) Despite the fact that the Addcounsel clinical director knew of Mr MacDonald’s money worries, he neither brought this to the attention of Addcounsel’s relationship director, the person responsible for charging Mr MacDonald, to enable consideration to be given to reducing the charges, nor did he highlight to Mr MacDonald the potential to access care via the NHS. This seems to be a potentially devastating omission, not simply on an individual basis but also in terms of Addcounsel’s systems. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Harbor London Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to highlight NHS care access to patients with financial concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “Addcounsel’s clinical director, a non medically qualified counsellor, continued to visit Mr MacDonald while Mr MacDonald was being treated as an inpatient at the Nightingale by a consultant psychiatrist. The clinical director told me that he was in a therapeutic type relationship, but he was not treating Mr MacDonald or giving him therapy. In addition to the psychiatrist consultations, therapy was available at the Nightingale. The daily Addcounsel visits inevitably entailed further cost to Mr MacDonald, as well as the additional cost of going through Addcounsel to the Nightingale in the first place, without giving treatment in return. I understand that this issue has been addressed by Addcounsel, following Mr MacDonald’s death. I was told at inquest that in future, when Addcounsel recognises that a patient is too unwell to be treated in the community and requires admission, Addcounsel’s file will be closed. In this way, a patient will not pay for visits at which no treatment is being offered. One of Mr MacDonald’s worries, expressed at consultation with his psychiatrist when Addcounsel’s clinical director was present, did centre on his financial situation. He was very anxious that his money was running out and he was not earning while he was in hospital. (After discharge from hospital, he told a friend that he had paid Addcounsel £20,000, and was not going to pursue follow up treatment.) Despite the fact that the Addcounsel clinical director knew of Mr MacDonald’s money worries, he neither brought this to the attention of Addcounsel’s relationship director, the person responsible for charging Mr MacDonald, to enable consideration to be given to reducing the charges, nor did he highlight to Mr MacDonald the potential to access care via the NHS. This seems to be a potentially devastating omission, not simply on an individual basis but also in terms of Addcounsel’s systems. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Harbor London Ltd; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to escalate patients’ financial concerns for consideration of charge reductions

    Wider context from the report

    “Addcounsel’s clinical director, a non medically qualified counsellor, continued to visit Mr MacDonald while Mr MacDonald was being treated as an inpatient at the Nightingale by a consultant psychiatrist. The clinical director told me that he was in a therapeutic type relationship, but he was not treating Mr MacDonald or giving him therapy. In addition to the psychiatrist consultations, therapy was available at the Nightingale. The daily Addcounsel visits inevitably entailed further cost to Mr MacDonald, as well as the additional cost of going through Addcounsel to the Nightingale in the first place, without giving treatment in return. I understand that this issue has been addressed by Addcounsel, following Mr MacDonald’s death. I was told at inquest that in future, when Addcounsel recognises that a patient is too unwell to be treated in the community and requires admission, Addcounsel’s file will be closed. In this way, a patient will not pay for visits at which no treatment is being offered. One of Mr MacDonald’s worries, expressed at consultation with his psychiatrist when Addcounsel’s clinical director was present, did centre on his financial situation. He was very anxious that his money was running out and he was not earning while he was in hospital. (After discharge from hospital, he told a friend that he had paid Addcounsel £20,000, and was not going to pursue follow up treatment.) Despite the fact that the Addcounsel clinical director knew of Mr MacDonald’s money worries, he neither brought this to the attention of Addcounsel’s relationship director, the person responsible for charging Mr MacDonald, to enable consideration to be given to reducing the charges, nor did he highlight to Mr MacDonald the potential to access care via the NHS. This seems to be a potentially devastating omission, not simply on an individual basis but also in terms of Addcounsel’s systems. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026