EXCLUSIVE: Silenced mother’s own FOI reveals nearly £11 million paid out for maternity harm at hospital where she says she was assaulted during childbirth

FOI reveals shocking payouts for Maternity harm at North Manchester General Hospital.

A woman who says she was traumatised and violated during the birth of her child has uncovered that the NHS Trust responsible for the hospital where she gave birth has paid almost £11 MILLION in maternity‑related compensation, despite her own case being dismissed and her medical records withheld for years.

Kirsty Almeida, 49, from Hebden Bridge, says she was left with severe physical injuries, 4th degree lacerations (correct term) and post‑traumatic stress disorder following the birth of her son at North Manchester General Hospital in April 2014.

After years of being unable to access her full medical records and having her concerns dismissed, the mother took matters into her own hands, submitting a Freedom of Information request that has now revealed the scale of compensation paid out by the Trust.

The FOI response shows that between 2015/16 and 2024/25, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust which includes North Manchester General Hospital paid a whopping £10,892,920.10 in compensation relating to maternity, pre‑natal and post‑natal care, across 21 individual claims or cases. All payments were made via NHS Resolution.

That equates to an average payout of more than £500,000 per claim, if they are evened out, which of course, is not clear that they were.

Some yearly data has been withheld by the Trust on patient‑identification grounds.

For Kirsty, the figures have been both shocking and validating.

She said speaking to Roch Valley Radio:

“For years I was made to feel like what happened to me wasn’t real, wasn’t serious, or was somehow my fault. I was told I be grateful that I had a child and that he was healthy and I should focus that but I was so incredibly broken inside from everything that happened against my will and my career was over and was the last thing on my mind. I had died inside and I couldn’t work out how to fix any of it”.

To then discover that nearly £11 million has been paid out for maternity harm by the same Trust… while my own suffering was dismissed is devastating, but also clarifying.

It tells me I was not wrong and for the version of me that had to go through the barbaric I now stand with her and for her because she was not alone in what happened

I was saying no repeatedly, but no one listened”

Kirsty says she entered labour calm, prepared, and excited, having planned a low‑intervention birth. Labour progressed quickly, but she says the experience deteriorated rapidly once midwives arrived, describing disorganisation, repeated interruptions, shamed and feeling increasingly unsafe.

She was later transferred to North Manchester General Hospital, where she says she repeatedly refused forceps and an episiotomy, asking multiple times whether there was any danger to her baby. She says she was told there was not.

She explained how interventions were then carried out without her consent and how she begged for none of it to happen.

She alleges that during the delivery, a doctor performed an episiotomy and used forceps after she had repeatedly refused, while staff physically restrained her body.

She describes how the doctor asked the staff and her child’s father to pull her back on the count of three, and that he would pull the baby out with the forceps having cut her open, suffering severe 4th degree lacerations and tears, long‑term physical injury, and psychological trauma.

The Trust has not commented on the specifics of her account.

Records withheld, case closed.

Almeida says that in the years following the birth, she struggled to obtain her full medical records despite support from senior NHS therapists. When records were eventually released, she says they characterised her as “afraid of sex” a description she says was taken out of context and used to dismiss her concerns.

She says she was later informed that her case had been closed.

“I felt erased,” she says. “It was like the harm was rewritten as a personality flaw. I couldn’t fight anymore.”

Almeida did not pursue compensation.

A decade‑long impact

Before the birth, Almeida was a highly successful professional singer‑songwriter, signed to a major label, performing internationally and appearing at major venues including the Barbican, Bridgewater Hall and Glastonbury.

She says the trauma ended her career almost overnight.

“I couldn’t function beyond surviving,” she says. “I lost my career, my income, my sense of safety, my identity.”

She later became homeless after years of intensive trauma therapy and loss of earnings.

Only now, more than ten years later, does she say she is beginning to speak publicly again, prompted by the FOI findings from making the request herself.

Kirsty is hoping that her story raises wider questions about:

• How maternity trauma is handled and recorded
• How many women are deterred from pursuing legal action
• and whether compensation figures reflect a larger, under‑reported problem

The FOI data shows that a relatively small number of claims have resulted in very high payouts, suggesting serious incidents with life‑changing consequences.

For the singer, the data represents something else entirely. “This isn’t about money,” she says.

“It’s about truth. I was silenced when it happened. I am now standing up for the version of me then who had noone by her side. Now the numbers speak for themselves.”

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust was contacted on 5 February 2026 regarding the concerns raised. The Trust said it did not operate North Manchester General Hospital at the time of the 2014 events and referred our request to Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust.

Following further contact on 12 and 13 February 2026, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust requested additional time to respond, which was granted. No further comment was received before the deadline and before publication.

Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust was contacted on 6 February 2026 and again on 12 and 16 February 2026. The Trust indicated it was seeking further information but did not provide a substantive response before the publication deadline.