Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

4. Ms P complains about the Trust’s wheelchair provision. In particular, she complains she has not been given a suitable wheelchair that meets her needs.

5. Ms P says as a result of the Trust’s actions, the wheelchair she currently has does not enable her to self-propel.

6. Ms P is seeking a suitable wheelchair to meet her needs.

7. Ms P was issued a powered wheelchair in December 2022 following an assessment.

8. On 16 June 2023 Ms P raised concerns about the issues she was experiencing with the powered wheelchair. Ms P was given a standard self-propelling manual back-up wheelchair and was placed on a waiting list for an urgent review.

9. In August 2023 Ms P was involved in an accident in which she collided into a wall whilst out in her powered wheelchair. She reported this on 7 August 2023.

10. On 24 August 2023 Ms P was assessed for a new powered wheelchair but instead, she wanted to consider a third-party option of the Personal Wheelchair Budget where she could use the monetary value of the NHS provision to put towards a folding powerchair from an approved provider.

11. Ms P could not source a powered provision that met her needs outside of the NHS. She requested a new non-standard manual wheelchair to allow a powered third wheel to be fitted and she continued to use a self-propelling wheelchair.

12. A new referral was raised and triaged on 14 November 2023 and Ms P was placed on a waiting list for assessment.

13. In March 2024 Ms P trialled an active user manual wheelchair that was compatible with a powered third wheel, but she said the chair was too big and would not be able to store the wheelchair safely in her car. Ms P found the Trust’s recommendations unsuitable and was left with her self-propelling manual wheelchair which she says is also unsuitable.

14. On 7 May 2024 Ms P formally complained to the Trust. The Trust responded on 5 July 2024.

15. Ms P brought her complaint to us on 12 August 2025.

18. 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.

Date of events and knowledge

19. Ms P complained about the Trust’s wheelchair provision. She says she has not been given a suitable wheelchair to meet her needs.

20. Ms P first raised concerns about her powered wheelchair from as early as 16 June 2023. By March 2024 she knew that the Trust’s recommendations were unsuitable and she was left with her self-propelling manual wheelchair which she says is also unsuitable. We have used March 2024 as the latest date Ms P knew she had reason to complain. This means she should have complained to us by March 2025 at the latest. We received her complaint in August 2025. This means, Ms P’s complaint is out of time by 5 months.

Consideration of reasons for delay

21. As set out above, Ms P’s latest possible date of knowledge for her complaint about the suitability of her wheelchair was March 2024.

22. We have considered Ms P’s reasons for the delay in progressing her complaint with the Trust, and separately, her delay in complaining to us.

23. We expect complainants to submit a formal complaint soon after becoming aware there is a reason to complain. Ms P says she wanted to give the Trust the opportunity to put things right for her. We can see that once it became clear to Ms P that her concerns were not going to be resolved, she acted proactively and submitted a formal complaint within two months of becoming aware she had reason to complain. The Trust responded on 5 July 2024.

24. We appreciate Ms P’s comment that she was not signposted to our service in the Trust’s response dated 5 July 2024. While it would have been clearer for Ms P if the Trust had provided information on our service, we note that she was signposted to its Patient and Liaison Service who informed her of our service.

25. Furthermore, we can see that soon after her unfortunate accident in August 2023, Ms P pursued a formal complaint, separately, with the Trust’s Partners (who issue and fit the wheelchair). Its response to Ms P’s complaint also included information about our service.

26. With regards to Ms P’s 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 5 July 2024, and Ms P complained to us on 12 August 2025. We asked Ms P to explain the 12-month delay in complaining to our service.

27. Ms P said she had experienced delays getting advocacy support. She says she contacted the advocacy service on 20 August 2024 requesting advocacy support. She discussed her complaint with her advocate on 27 August 2024 and was sent an email with information about our service.

28. We asked for a copy of the information that was sent to Ms P in August to ascertain whether it included information on our time limits, but the advocacy service was not able to locate the information. The advocacy service explained that Ms P struggled to read the volume of information about our service, due to her autism.

29. Ms P says she contacted the advocacy service again in November 2024 seeking further assistance and experienced delays accessing support up until April 2025. We can see evidence that Ms P chased for an update in April 2025, but the advocacy service or Ms P have not been able to provide any evidence that she contacted the advocacy service between November 2024 and April 2025.

30. We understand it would have been frustrating for Ms P when she experienced delays getting advocacy support, especially as she had contacted the service soon after she received the Trust’s complaint response. We understand that Ms P had difficulty digesting the information the advocacy service sent to her in August 2024, however she was signposted to our service and could have contacted us at the earliest opportunity to explain the circumstances of her complaint and that she was seeking advocacy support.

31. We do not consider there is enough evidence to demonstrate Ms P made timely attempts to follow-up with the advocacy service after she had been given information about our service in August 2024 and signposted to our service on previous occasions during the complaints process. In addition, there was a delay of three months, between August and November 2024, before Ms P contacted the advocacy service asking for further support. We consider Ms P should have contacted us at some point between November and April while she waited to hear back from her advocate.

32. We have considered the time the Trust took to respond to Ms P’s complaint. The Regulations say the organisation investigating a complaint should send the complaint response ‘within the relevant period’. It defines this as ‘the period of six months commencing on the day on which the complaint was received’.

33. We can see it took the Trust two months to respond to Ms P’s complaint. As such, we consider the Trust provided a timely response.

34. Having considered all of Ms P’s reasons, we are not persuaded there is a good enough reason to set aside our time limit. The reasons she has provided do not justify the extent of the delay in the complaint reaching us.

Overall conclusions

35. Ms P’s complaint was brought to us 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.

36. We recognise that Ms P made efforts to resolve the complaint herself before submitting a formal complaint and she experienced delays with her advocacy service before reaching us. We do not think these reasons were significant enough to explain the long delay in complaining to our service.

37. We are very sorry to hear Ms P is experiencing ongoing difficulties with the Trust’s wheelchair provision and this decision does not take away from the challenges she continues to face.

1. We have carefully considered Ms P’s complaint about Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit. Therefore, we propose to take no further action. We acknowledge that this will be disappointing for Ms P and would like to reassure her that our decision was reached with careful consideration of the evidence she provided.

2. We recognise Ms P’s concerns about the Trust’s wheelchair provision remain unresolved and she is still engaging with the Trust about the provision of a suitable wheelchair.

3. We have taken Ms P’s concerns seriously and carefully considered them. However, Ms P’s complaint was brought to us 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 for Ms P.