Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust

3. Mrs L complains about the care and treatment she received from the Trust between February 2023 and September 2024.

4. Specifically, Mrs L says the Trust: • did not provide adequate care and treatment following her diagnosis of Mortons neuroma • complaint handling process and communication with her was poor and lengthy.

5. Mrs L said because of these failings her previous diagnosis of complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from previous hospital stays have been made worse. She says her mobility has been affected and she is in pain when walking so she cannot walk far. It has had an impact on her daily life, and she is unable to do the things she could do before, such as driving.

6. Mrs L is looking for financial remedy, an apology and service improvements.

7. February 2023, Mrs L attended the Trust after being referred by her GP. The Trust examined her foot. The Trust said Mrs L had two Morton’s neuromas. The Trust referred her for ultrasound scan guided injections. Mortons neuroma is a painful thickening of the tissue around a nerve in the foot, usually between the third and fourth toes. An ultrasound guided injection uses imaging to inject steroids and local anaesthetic into a joint or soft tissue.

8. April 2023, Mrs L attended the Trust to have the ultrasound guided injections. The Trust identified she had a third neuroma. The Trust injected all the neuromas in her foot.

9. Between the April and November 2023, Mrs L attended the Trust for three ultrasound guided injections on the neuromas in her foot.

10. November 2023, the Trust did a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and X-ray.

11. August 2024, Mrs L complained to the Trust.

12. September 2024, Mrs L attended the Trust. the Trust discussed the MRI results from November 2023. It said Mrs L did not have Mortons neuromas in her foot. The Trust acknowledged previous ultrasound scans had shown neuromas. After having the injections, the latest MRI scan from November were clear. The Trust said it would not operate on Mrs L’s foot. It referred her to orthotics for insoles. The Trust requested her GP refer her for pain management.

13. September 2024, the Trust responded to Mrs L’s complaint. The Trust advised her to go to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

14. October 2024, Mrs L went back to the Trust with the same concerns, as her previous complaint.

15. December 2024, the Trust responded. The Trust directed her to PHSO again. Mrs L went back to the Trust.

16. September 2025, the Trust responded and said it would not take the complaint further. It said she should go to PHSO. The Trust warned Mrs L about PHSO’s time limit.

17. October 2025, Mrs L brought her complaint to PHSO.

20. The law states 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 Mrs L to understand the reasons why she could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to her.

21. We can see that Mrs L became aware of the issues relating to her care and treatment in May 2023.

22. In order for her complaint to be within the 12-month time consideration, Mrs L should have brought her complaint to us by May 2024 the latest. Mrs L brought her complaint to us in October 2025. The complaint is one year and five months outside our time limit consideration.

23. Mrs L said the reason for the delay in bringing her complaint to us was because she had complained to the Trust in March 2024 about a shoulder issue at the same Trust. During the complaints process about her shoulder, she also raised concerns about the care and treatment for her foot.

24. The Trust told Mrs L she would need to submit a formal complaint about her new issues as they would need to be a separate complaint.

25. The Trust arranged a local resolution meeting for her shoulder complaint. Mrs L said believed the Trust was going to discuss her foot complaint, at the same time. The meeting was cancelled, and the Trust provided a written response to her shoulder complaint.

26. Mrs L believes the date the Trust provided as her date of complaint of August 2024, is incorrect. She said she complained to the Trust in April 2024. She has provided an email trail between herself and her advocate. The email trail is of a draft complaint letter Mrs L’s advocate wrote, which is dated 11 April 2024. Mrs L’s advocate asked her to look over the email and confirm everything is correct. Once Mrs L accepts the draft email, her advocate said she would submit the complaint to the Trust with the letter that day. When we asked the Trust to provide the complaint file and correspondence for Mrs L, we only have her complaint dated August 2024. The Trust said it has no record of any communication with Mrs L, about her foot complaint, before this date.

27. We believe Mrs L’s complaint was already outside the 12 month time consideration when she complained to the Trust. She told us, the Trust had also told her, her complaint was out of time.

28. Mrs L also said she did not bring her complaint to us after the first Trust response dated September 2024, because she received a call from the Trust which said she was going to be having a different consultant. She also said the process was difficult to navigate. She says she was trying to follow the complaint process. She said the Trust made more mistakes. She said was trying to save herself from distress and limit her phone calls and emails.

29. We understand Mrs L found the complaints process difficult to navigate and was trying to limit her phone calls and emails to save herself from distress. We have seen evidence which show the Trust responses clearly signposted Mrs L to us in September 2024 and warned her about the time limit PHSO has. Mrs L returned to the Trust with further concerns in October and December 2024. On these occasions we can see Mrs L raised the same issues with the Trust.

30. The Trust also responded to Mrs L in December 2024. At this time, it directed her to our service again, if she was unhappy with the response. Mrs L chose to return to the Trust again. The Trust provided a further response in September 2025. Local resolution took one year and one month to complete. We believe there was opportunities for Mrs L to come to us sooner than she did. Mrs L did not have to continue to return to the Trust with the same concerns, after it had signposted her to us.

31. Considering all the information, we are not satisfied the reasons Mrs L has given for the delay in bringing her complaint to us are enough for us to put the time limit to one side.

32. We understand how difficult it can be to make a complaint. We would like to thank Mrs L for bringing her concerns to us.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs L’s complaint about Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We were very sorry to hear about her experiences and the impact this had on her.

2. Having reviewed the evidence, we have decided the complaint falls outside our time limit. We have decided there is no good reason for us to put our time limit aside.