20. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Miss O to understand the reasons why she could not bring her complaint to us sooner. We have also considered the time the organisations have taken to respond to Miss O.
WAH
21. Miss O raised her complaint with WAH on 29 July 2021 following her discharge on 28 July. We appreciate Miss O raised this part of her complaint promptly and without delay. WAH issued its first response on 6 September. Miss O promptly responded on 10 September with her continuing concerns. WAH issued its final response on 12 October 2021. Miss O did not approach our office until 23 May 2022, and we advised her to submit a completed complaint form. Miss O submitted this on 15 August.
22. WAH took less than two weeks to respond to Miss O’s initial complaint and issued its final response one month after receiving Miss O’s continuing concerns. There is a ten-month gap between Miss O receiving the final response in October 2021 and submitting her complaint to us in August 2022. Overall, we consider WAH’s response time was not a significant amount of time, and therefore not a significant reason for the delay in bringing this complaint to us.
23. We asked Miss O if she could explain the period between 12 October 2021, when she received the final response, and August 2022, when she submitted her complaint form, and why she could not have complained to us before then.
24. Miss O said she was unable to complain because she was abroad getting treatment for a brain injury and slipped discs in her neck. Miss O said she went abroad in August 2021, but she did not know when she returned. We can see Miss O had a consultation on 16 August in a hospital abroad. The latest date we can see that Miss O was abroad is 13 October.
25. WAH’s final response was issued on 12 October, so it appears most of the time Miss O spent in hospital was before the final response. Although we appreciate Miss O had been receiving treatment as a hospital inpatient, it does not appear this would have prevented her from bringing a complaint to us sooner, as it happened before the delay. Additionally, Miss O has sent evidence showing she had contacted WAH (10 September), the Trust (27 August) and an MP (9 September) while she was receiving treatment abroad.
26. Miss O said when she returned home, she was placed in a private mental health care home. Miss O said she was very poorly while in this care home, as it was not an appropriate place for her, and so she was unable to complain at this time. Miss O was unable to provide a date for the placement in the care home. In emails provided by Miss O, we can see in December 2021 there is correspondence with this address documented.
27. Miss O provided us with emails she had sent to a solicitor in April 2022. Miss O also contacted her psychiatrist on 18 May with concerns she had about her treatment. This shows Miss O would have been able to raise her complaint during this time, as she was actively raising concerns with a solicitor and her doctor.
28. Miss O contacted us on 23 May 2022 to tell us she had received her final responses. We asked Miss O to complete a complaint form and return it to us for us to assess her complaint. Miss O did this on 15 August.
29. We asked Miss O if she could explain the time between May and August 2022. Miss O said she was too unwell to complain as she had fluctuating brain function and had no one to help her. On 23 May 2022, we provided Miss O with details of an advocacy service that could help her make her complaint. We told her advocacy services are free and could help and support her through the process.
30. We have considered the reasons Miss O has provided for why she was unable to bring her complaint to us sooner. We recognise Miss O has had an incredibly difficult time with her health and this has had an enormous impact on her. Our decision is in no way intended to detract from that impact.
31. While we appreciate the complaint is only one month out of time, we can see that between October 2021 (WAH’s final response) and August 2022 (Miss O’s complaint to us) there is a ten-month gap.
32. After considering the reasons Miss O has provided, we have seen no evidence she could not have brought her complaint to us sooner. Miss O had contacted other trusts, a solicitor and an MP to raise her complaint during this time. We believe Miss O could have contacted us sooner if she had chosen to do so. We do not believe there is a good enough reason for us to put the time limit to one side.
The Trust
33. Miss O told us in 2019 the Trust said it would admit her, as she was displaying symptoms of a stroke. Miss O does not know when in 2019 this happened, except it was before the events of October 2019. In October 2019, Miss O said the neurologist told her she had a minor brain injury, which she says is incorrect. Miss O also said the neurologist did not refer her to the brain injury service.
34. Miss O would have reasonably known at the time the Trust did not admit her that she was unhappy with this decision. The latest we can say she was aware of this is October 2019, as we are only able to say this happened at some point before her October appointment. Miss O would also have known in October she was unhappy with what the neurologist told her, as she says doctors had told her it was something more serious in 2018. This means these parts of her complaint are one year and ten months out of time.
35. We think Miss O could have reasonably known in January 2020 that the referral to the brain injury service had not been completed. This is when the service told her it could not accept the referral without the requested information. This part of her complaint is one year and seven months out of time.
36. We have set out our consideration of the time period from October 2021 to August 2022 above.
37. Miss O raised her complaint with the Trust on 27 August 2021. Importantly, the complaint was already ten months (admission and October 2019 care) and seven months (referral) out of time at this point.
38. The Trust issued its response on 13 December 2021, which is four months after receiving her complaint. We appreciate four months is a significant amount of time for the Trust to respond, and we have taken this into account when considering the time limit. However, although the Trust took four months to respond, this does not account for all, or even most of the delay in bringing the complaint to us.
39. We asked Miss O if she was able to explain the time from October 2019, when the events took place, to August 2021, when she raised her complaint with the Trust. Miss O said her brain function was declining during this time and she was very unwell, with multiple GP visits and ambulance callouts. Miss O was unable to provide any further reasons for the delay in complaining during this time.
40. We understand Miss O has had a difficult time with her health and this would have impacted her ability to complain. However, even without the delay between October 2019 and August 2021, Miss O’s complaint is out of time, and we have seen no reason to set the time limit aside. As set out in our time consideration of the complaint about WAH, we think Miss O could have brought her complaint to us sooner.
41. We do not have sufficient reason to explain why Miss O was not able to raise her complaint earlier. Taking all this into account, we do not consider it appropriate to set our time limit to one side. We appreciate Miss O will be disappointed by our decision not to consider her complaint further.