3. Miss A complains the Trust did not carry out diagnostic testing for her schizophrenia between 2002 to 2021.
4. Miss A says the failure to carry out relevant diagnostic tests have left her susceptible to the harmful side effects of recommended treatment drugs and worsened her health.
5. Miss A would like the Trust to acknowledge its failings and explain why it did not carry out diagnostic testing.
6. Miss A has a history of mental health difficulties and a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
7. Miss A was on medication for schizophrenia. In April 2023 she asked the Trust about the side effects of her prescription medication Aripiprazole (primarily used to treat schizophrenia) after she had read on the information leaflet that it may cause suicidal thoughts and sudden unexplained death.
8. In August 2024 Miss A read an article about the importance of carrying out diagnostic tests on the brain, such as vitamin deficiency tests and scans before considering psychiatric drugs. She said testing was not considered as part of the Trust’s care and treatment of her schizophrenia between 2002 to 2021. According to Miss A, if she had undergone diagnostic tests, she would not have been prescribed Aripiprazole and other potentially harmful drugs.
9. On 7 February 2025 Miss A submitted a formal complaint to the Trust. The Trust issued its final response on 10 July 2025.
10. Miss A brought her complaint to us on 21 July 2025.
13. 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 good reason to do so.
Dates and events and knowledge
14. Miss A complained the Trust did not carry out further investigative tests on her brain before prescribing Aripiprazole which had some side effects that may have been harmful. Miss A says she became aware of the harmful side effects of Aripiprazole in April 2023, and this prompted her to do her own research into alternative treatment options for schizophrenia.
15. Miss A says she came across some research material around August 2024 which promotes the use of brain scans and diagnostic testing before making an informed decision to treat schizophrenia with psychiatric drugs. She says this led her to query why the Trust had not carried out relevant diagnostic tests on her between 2002 to 2021.
16. Miss A says she only became aware around August 2024, after doing her own research, that she had reason to complain about the lack of diagnostic testing between 2002 to 2021.
17. We have carefully considered Miss A’s date of knowledge in light of the period of complaint, the information in her complaint form, and the information she has shared with us during our initial call on 27 January 2021.
18. We consider April 2023 is her latest possible date of knowledge. This is because in April 2023 Miss A was aware she had concerns about the potentially harmful side effects of the treatment she had been receiving after reading it may cause suicidal thoughts and sudden unexplained death. In April 2023, Miss A could have formally complained to the Trust because it was at this point, she queried the Trust’s medication practices and is what triggered Miss A to do her own research into alternative mental health treatment.
19. Whilst Miss A says that she only became aware of the potential testing that could have been done when she read some research material, her complaint is that she was left susceptible to the harmful side effects of recommended treatment drugs which in turn worsened her health. We can see that she was aware of the harmful side effects in April 2023, and she would have known the affects they were having on her health at this stage.
20. As such, we consider April 2023 is Miss A’s date of knowledge as she queried the medication to the Trust at that stage. Miss A complained to us in July 2025. This means her complaint is out of time by 15 months.
Consideration of reasons for delays
21. We have considered Miss A’s reasons for the delay in submitting a formal complaint to the Trust, and separately, her delay in complaining to us.
22. With regards to Miss A’s delay in complaining to the Trust, Miss A would have known she had reason to complain in April 2023 (her latest date of knowledge) after she had informed the Trust about the potentially harmful side effects she had noticed on the leaflet for Aripiprazole. Miss A said she felt manipulated by the Trust’s response as it said she was mistaken by the information she had read about the side effects of her medication.
23. It is clear Miss A was dissatisfied with the Trust’s response when she shared the concerning information she had read on the leaflet of her medication. Miss A complained to the Trust on 7 February 2025. There was a 21-month delay before Miss A complained to the Trust.
24. We asked Miss A to explain the reason for the delay in complaining to the Trust and she told us that she only became aware she had reason to complain when she read up on the benefits of diagnostic testing for brain health in 2024.
25. Miss A has made it clear that she had received unsatisfactory responses to her questions about the causes of decline in mental health from as early as 2002. It is clear that her concerns grew worse, leading her to query the side effects of her prescribed medication and challenge methods of treatment in 2023. We cannot see why she did not complain sooner about her treatment options. Miss A’s reason for delay does not justify the significant delay of 21 months.
26. Even when Miss A says she had a reason to complain in August 2024, she still delayed in making her complaint to the Trust for a further six months.
27. We are sympathetic to Miss A’s circumstances, particularly the understandable frustration she would have felt when she did not receive responses to her queries about her mental health difficulties.
28. With regards to the delay in complaining to us, we expect complainants to complain to us as soon as possible after receiving a final response from the organisation. The Trust issued its final response on 10 July 2025, and we can see that Miss A complained to us on 21 July; within three weeks of receiving the final response. We acknowledge Miss A’s efforts to complain to us soon after receiving the final response. Unfortunately, by this point our 12-month time limit had already lapsed.
29. We have considered the time the Trust took to respond to Miss A’s complaint. It took the Trust five months to respond. This is in line with the Regulations, which say the organisation investigating a complaint should send the complaint response within ‘six months commencing on the day on which the complaint was received’.
30. Having considered all of Miss A’s reasons, we are not persuaded there is good enough reason to set aside our time limit. The reason she has provided does not justify the extent of the delay in the complaint reaching us. We are also concerned that the length of time since the issues arose would adversely impact on our ability to carry out a meaningful investigation.
Overall conclusions
31. Miss A’s complaint was brought to us significantly outside of our time limit. For the reasons set out above, we do not see sufficient reason to set our time limit to one side.
32. We recognise that Miss A had gathered more supporting complaint information, from articles and other sources, by the time she had made her complaint. However, we do not think this justifies the long delay given that the complaint had already exceeded our time limit before Miss A submitted her formal complaint to the Trust.
33. We understand how much this complaint means to Miss A and are very sorry to hear about the difficulties she experienced with her care and treatment. We appreciate our decision not to investigate further is likely to be a source of further distress for her. We hope we have clearly explained why we are unable to waive the time limit in this case.
1. We have carefully considered Miss A’s complaint about North London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to hear about Miss A’s complaint and the impact she says this has had on her health. We have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit. Therefore, we propose to take no further action.
2. We have taken Miss A’s concerns seriously and carefully considered them. However, Miss A’s complaint was brought to us significantly outside of our time limit and we have not seen sufficient reasons to set our time limit to one side. We acknowledge our decision will be disappointing given Miss A’s ongoing concerns about her care and treatment.