An independent provider in the Wiltshire area

5. Mrs D complains about the care her child, F, received from the Provider in 2025. Mrs D says the Provider:

• knowingly gave inaccurate information about the expected wait time for an ADHD assessment when she first contacted them • failed to assess F for ADHD within its advertised timeframe and did not give a revised timeframe for assessment • communicated poorly with her during the complaint process.

6. Mrs D says if the Provider had given her accurate waiting list times she could have chosen another provider and F would have been assessed sooner. She still does not know when her son will be assessed and has no information on the length of the waiting list. She says the lack of assessment has meant her child has struggled with their mental health, has not received the necessary support and is being educated on a reduced timetable. She says the experience has caused her distress, upset and loss of income and has made her feel suicidal.

7. Mrs D is seeking an apology, acknowledgement of failings and financial remedy.

8. Mrs D’s child, F, was referred to the Provider in March 2025 for ADHD and ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) assessments under the NHS Right to Choose scheme. Mrs D told us she chose the Provider based on its estimated waiting list times of three months for ADHD assessments and five months for ASD assessments.

9. In January and April 2025, NHS Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Board (the ICB) asked the Provider to make changes to how NHS Right to Choose referrals were managed.

10. Mrs D contacted the Provider for an update in May 2025 when she had not received any information about F’s assessments. She told us the Provider said it had received a large increase in referrals since January 2025, which had affected the waiting times.

11. In June 2025, the Provider told Mrs D the waiting list was now eight to ten months for assessments due to changes in the NHS Right to Choose commissioning process.

12. Mrs D made a complaint to the Provider and received a final response in August 2025.

The Provider knowingly gave Mrs D inaccurate waiting list information

15. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we cannot link the events complained about with the negative impact Mrs D has claimed.

16. Mrs D said that if in March 2025 the Provider had given her correct information about wait times, she could have chosen another provider and F would have been assessed sooner.

17. We considered whether Mrs D would have had the opportunity to choose another provider with a shorter wait time if she had been given correct information at the earliest possible point.

18. The ICB asked providers to pause new autism and ADHD assessments. It asked providers not to progress with booking assessments unless they had already been booked or were in progress.

19. It would not be proportionate for us to review the wait times of all eligible providers at the time of F’s referral, in order to consider the likelihood of F being assessed sooner elsewhere. The issues with waiting times for ASD and ADHD assessments across the country are well documented in national media in recent years.

20. We consider that even if Mrs D had been given correct information about the likely length of wait times at the Provider when F was referred in March 2025, it is not clear that she would have been able to secure a better outcome and get F assessed sooner. This is because it is highly likely other providers would have had, at best, similar wait times. We will therefore not be looking at this part of the complaint further.

21. We understand Mrs D’s frustration about the discrepancies in the information she was given by the provider. Wait times for autism assessments are too long and we agree with Mrs D that the situation is unsatisfactory.

The Provider failed to assess F for ADHD within its advertised timeframe and did not give a revised timeframe for assessment.

22. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

23. The Provider received F’s referral in March 2025. In June 2025, the Provider told Mrs D the estimated waiting list time was approximately eight to ten months for assessments, due to changes in the NHS Right to Choose commissioning process.

24. In June 2025 Mrs D emailed the Provider asking for more definite information about when F would be seen. The Provider told Mrs D it was only able to provide an indicative wait time and could not give an exact date for when F would be assessed.

25. We understand how frustrating and upsetting it was for Mrs D to have been waiting for an assessment for F for so long. We understand the impact this has had on Mrs D, F and their family life.

26. The NHS Constitution sets out the principles and objectives of the NHS. It states that patients have the right to access certain services commissioned by NHS bodies within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer a range of suitable alternative providers if this is not possible.

27. The NHS Constitution says that patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from GP referral to assessment or treatment.

28. The NHS Choice Framework says patients have a right to choose an alternative provider if they have to wait longer than 18 weeks before assessment or treatment. Patients are able to choose any qualifying provider which holds an NHS qualifying contract.

29. The capacity of NHS-funded neurodevelopmental services has been under pressure due to a rising demand for these services and a lack of sufficient numbers of specialist clinical practitioners to deliver them. This pressure is steadily increasing over time.

30. The ICB decided to change the way providers managed autism and ADHD assessments in January and April 2025. It asked providers to pause new autism and ADHD assessments in order to manage NHS resources.

31. The Provider’s NHS qualifying contract does not impose any contractual obligations on the maximum waiting time before a patient must be assessed.

32. Internal emails between Provider staff explain that there is no legal right to a definitive wait time. It explained that the NHS system was very strained in provision of ADHD and ASD assessments and the long wait times reflected the current status of access to ADHD and ASD referrals across the country. The email directed staff to ensure Mrs D was given this information.

33. The Provider’s response to Mrs D’s complaint in July 2025 suggests Mrs D was given this information during phone calls with senior staff in late June 2025. These calls were not recorded, so this could not be verified. However, the complaint response several weeks later gave the same information.

34. We recognise Mrs D’s concern that the Provider had not given her definite information about when F would be assessed for ASD and ADHD. We understand how frustrating and distressing this was for her and accept the current situation is not delivering satisfactory outcomes for patients.

35. Having reviewed the evidence, we are satisfied the Provider gave Mrs D indicative wait times for F’s assessment in line with relevant legislation and its contractual obligations. These wait times reflected the national situation regarding wait times for ASD and ADHD assessments. We will therefore not be looking at this part of the complaint further.

36. Our decision does not mean that we consider this length of wait to be acceptable. The NHS itself has recognised it is not. We understand the reasons why Mrs D raised these concerns with us and the impact it is having on her and F’s everyday life and mental health. We hope our decision gives Mrs D some clarity on what is happening at the Provider and in the broader NHS regarding neurodiversity assessments.

The Provider communicated poorly with Mrs D following her complaint

37. Mrs D told us the Provider did not call back when arranged on several occasions and mishandled her complaint.

38. In its complaint responses, the Provider unreservedly apologised for not calling Mrs D when requested and for the difficulties she had experienced in bringing her complaint. It said senior staff had contacted Mrs D after the delayed callbacks to provide updates.

39. The records show Mrs D expected to receive a callback in June 2025. A follow up call was arranged two days later and took place six days later.

40. Our NHS Complaint Standards say organisations should discuss timescales with everyone involved in the complaint, agree how people will be kept informed and provide regular updates.

41. Having reviewed the evidence, we consider that while the Provider did not call Mrs D when it promised, it made subsequent contact in a timely manner and escalated the issue to senior staff. It also offered an unreserved apology in its final response. We consider this is in line with our complaint standards. We will therefore not be looking at this part of the complaint further.

42. We thank Mrs D for taking the time and effort to bring her complaint to our attention and fully accept this situation has been unsatisfactory for her and F. We recognise this has been a difficult period for her and her family. We hope our explanation explains the care and treatment F received. We wish Mrs D and F the best for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs D’s complaint about the care her child, F, received from the Provider in 2025. We are very sorry to hear of Mrs D’s experience and the distress it caused her.

2. On the balance of probabilities, we consider that the Provider did not give Mrs D accurate information at the earliest possible point about the changes in the Right to Choose pathway and the possible effect on wait times. We have decided we cannot link the events complained about to the claimed impact. We explain this in more detail below.

3. We have seen no indication that anything went wrong when the Provider did not assess F within its indicative time frame. We consider the Provider handled Mrs D’s complaint in line with legislation and our complaint standards. We explain this in more detail below.

4. We understand this decision is not what Mrs D was hoping for and we are sorry if this adds any further distress. We agree that Mrs D’s experience has been completely unsatisfactory for her and her child.