11. Miss O complains about aspects of the care and treatment, Provide Healthcare, provided to her daughter, Miss A. Specifically Miss O says Provide failed to accept Miss A’s referral for an Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessment in March 2022. She also complains, Provide inappropriately used information from Miss A’s medical records to decline the referral.
12. Miss O complains about aspects of the care and treatment Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (EPUT) provided to her daughter, Miss A. Specifically, Miss O says EPUT failed to accept Miss A’s referral for an Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessment. She also complains, EPUT inappropriately used information from Miss A’s medical records to decline the referral.
13. ADHD is a condition where the brain works differently to most people.
14. Autism, also called ASD, is a lifelong, developmental condition. It affects the way a person communicates, interacts and processes information.
Evidence
15. We have considered information provided by Miss O in her complaint form alongside our telephone calls with Miss O on 30 September 2025 and 11 November 2025. We have also considered information provided by both organisations.
16. We use relevant law, policy, guidance and standards to inform our thinking. This allows us to consider what should have happened. In this case we have referred to the following standards:
• Health Service Commissioner’s Act 1993 (the Act).
Reasons for our decision
PCS
17. Miss O complains about aspects of the care and treatment, Provide Healthcare, provided to her daughter, Miss A. Specifically Miss O says Provide failed to accept Miss A’s referral for an Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessment in March 2022. She also complains, Provide inappropriately used information from Miss A’s medical records to decline the referral.
18. The law says that a complaint should be brought to our service within one year of the complaint becoming aware of their reason to complain.
19. When looking at a timeline of this complaint, we consider Miss O became aware of this reason to complain on 29 March 2022. A formal complaint was then raised to PCS by Miss O’s MP on 13 July 2023 which is 15 months later. Miss O then brought her complaint to our service on 10 July 2024.
20. Based on the information that we have seen so far, Miss O’s complaint is out of time by 14 months.
We discussed the reasons for the delay with Miss O in the calls on 30 September 2025 and 11 November 2025. Miss O indicated that they were aware they could escalate their complaint to us, however they chose not to as they wanted to see if the service put their claimed mistakes right first.
21. We recognise Miss O would have liked to see whether the service put right their mistakes. However, we can see Miss O’s date of knowledge was in 2022 and she received a final response in July 2023. We consider she would have known the outcome to her complaint by that point. While Miss O has drawn our attention to some circumstances which she says caused delay, we do not consider they were so significant as to account for this whole period of time.
22. For these reasons, we do not consider Miss O has provided a reason for why we should set aside our time limit. We have also not identified any mitigating or exceptional circumstances which would allow us to set the time limit aside for Miss O’s complaint, and for this reason we are unable to consider her concerns. We recognise this will be disappointing for Miss O, given the ongoing concerns he has and the impact this has had on her wellbeing.
EPUT
23. Miss O complains about aspects of the care and treatment Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (EPUT) provided to her daughter, Miss A. Specifically, Miss O says EPUT failed to accept Miss A’s referral for an Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessment. She also complains, EPUT inappropriately used information from Miss A’s medical records to decline the referral.
24. The law says that we cannot investigate a complaint whereby the complainant has or will have had the opportunity to raise their concerns via an alternate legal remedy.
25. When looking at this complaint, along with the outcome which Miss O is looking to achieve of financial redress, it is appropriate for Miss O to explore any potential alternate legal remedy in this case.
26. We discussed the potential outcome of alternate legal remedy with Miss O on the call on 11 November 2025. Miss O explained that there is a potential financial barrier to accessing alternate legal remedy.
27. Miss O also provided a further email dated 17 November 2025 in which she expressed another potential barrier to accessing alternate legal remedy of Miss A struggling with processing information, sensory difficulties, anxiety and communication.
28. Based on the information we have seen so far, we have not seen any reason why Miss O cannot explore the alternate legal remedy route on Miss A’s behalf via a no win no fee solicitor.
29. For these reasons, we have not seen reason why Miss O should not explore the alternate legal remedy route before returning to us if they are unsuccessful in their claim. We have also not identified any mitigating or exceptional circumstances which would allow us to investigate Miss O’s complaint before exploring potential alternate legal remedy. We recognise this will be disappointing for Miss O, given the ongoing concerns he has and the impact this has had on her wellbeing.