Treatment for poisoning
16. The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (section 9) 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 Mr O to understand the reasons why he could not do so.
17. Mr O told us that in February 2022, he informed the Practice that he has been poisoned, and this has caused him fertility issues, but the Practice did not provide him any treatment.
18. We consider that Mr O was aware he had reasons to complain about the Practice in February 2022. This means Mr O had until February 2023 to complain to us. Mr O complained to the Practice in January 2024 and to us in February 2025. This shows that his complaint about the Practice is two years outside of our time limit.
19. We asked Mr O why he could not complain about the Practice, or to us sooner. We have considered his reasons for delay and whether there are strong enough reasons to set our time limit to one side.
20. Mr O told us that he did not complain to us sooner because he was ‘going through the [complaint] process’. He says he did not complaint to the Practice sooner because ‘he was doing his job’ and he had complained to the police late 2022 about the poisoning and they did nothing because they needed to see clinical proof that he has been poisoned.
21. We have considered the time the Trust took to respond to Mr O’s complaint about itself and the Practice. We can see local resolution was completed within five months.
22. We asked Mr O why could he not bring his complaint to us once local resolution had been completed. He explained that upon the advice of the Trust in February 2024, he complained to the ICO in July 2024 and did not get a response until December 2024.
23. He says since receiving a response from the ICO, he went on holiday to see his mother and came back in the middle of January 2025. He also explained that when he came back, he sought support from an advocacy group to help him bring his complaint to us in February 2025.
24. Mr O says he was following the complaints process but did not follow through the advice given by the ICB to contact us if he remained dissatisfied with its outcome.
25. We acknowledge that he was not prompted to come to us upon receipt of the Trust’s response in February 2024, and followed the steps it provided (to contact the ICO).
26. However, between February 2022 to January 2024 (when he complained to the Practice), the information Mr O has provided shows he remained unhappy about the lack of support from the Practice throughout this period and still did not raise his concerns.
27. Mr O has not given us strong reasons as to why he could not complain sooner, other than he raised these concerns with the police in late 2022.
28. We recognise this process with the police may have somewhat delayed him bringing his complaint to us, however, we do not think it is a justifiable reason for the two years delay following local resolution and making his complaint to us.
29. Having considered all of the information Mr O provided, we cannot make a strong case to say there are good reasons to put our time limit to one side. Therefore, we will take no further action.
30. We are sorry to hear that he is experiencing symptoms, such as a rusted iron taste in his mouth because of what he believes to be poisoning. It sounds like he has been through an incredibly difficult time, and we recognise how frightening and overwhelming this must feel.
31. We acknowledge that this outcome is unlikely to be the outcome Mr O was hoping for and would like to thank him for taking the time to tell us about this part of his complaint.
Delusional disorder diagnosis
32. The Law (section 4) says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is reasonable in the circumstances.
33. We have discussed this with Mrs O to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.
34. Mr O told us that in November 2023, after obtaining his medical record, he found out the Trust diagnosed him with delusional disorder and refused to remove it from his medical record when he requested for this through the complaint process.
35. The Trust explained that he was referred by his GP in June 2022 for a mental and physical health assessments. It says in August 2022, Mr O had a mental health review done by a psychiatrist, who assessed the type of symptoms he was experiencing and matched the criteria for what psychiatrists call a ‘delusional disorder’.
36. It explained that the diagnosis was appropriate based on the information available at the time, and are not able to remove the diagnosis from his records. The Trust explained that if Mr O wishes, it can add a comment on his records to say that he does not agree with the diagnosis.
37. Mr O also complained to the ICO and in its response it advised him to go to court to pursue a data protection claim, should he wish to achieve the removal that he is seeking.
38. Legal proceedings are not the only route by which Mr O may achieve his outcome of financial compensation. If we upheld the complaint, we may suggest financial compensation. However, it appears the courts may be well placed to achieve both the outcomes Mr O is seeking, including the removal of his diagnosis from his medical records. This is because we cannot achieve this outcome.
39. We have asked Mr O if there are any reasons why he may not be able to pursue a legal claim. He explained that he does not have any barriers, and is open to exploring this route.
40. Mr O is within the six-year time limit to pursue a legal claim, and in our view it appears there are no significant reasons which would stop him from being able to explore a legal claim to the complaint. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable for him to seek legal action. The courts can independently review the case and decide whether there has been any clinical negligence.
41. Once Mr O has explored the legal route in full, if he is not able to pursue it for any reason, he may come back to us, and we could potentially consider it as a new complaint.
42. We advise Mr O does so promptly, as the law says we can only consider complaints which have been brought to us within 12 months of the person becoming aware of the need to complain. We can set the time limit aside if we see good reason to do so.
43. We appreciate Mr O wants this diagnosis to be removed from his records and hope he is able to achieve this through the courts.