A practice in the North Devon area

3. Mr B complains that the Practice continued to prescribe him venlafaxine without regular monitoring, review, or formal diagnosis for 22 years between 1998 and 2020. He also complains the Practice never warned him about potential withdrawal effects or offered support to him during and after this time in 2020.

4. As a result of this, Mr B says a vast proportion of his adult life has been shadowed by the effects of venlafaxine and the drug made him feel numb. He also says the long-term use without proper monitoring contributed to his hypertensive crisis (dangerously high blood pressure) in 2024 and ongoing issues including fatigue, pain, anxiety and cognitive dulling since then.

5. As a result of his complaint, Mr B is seeking an apology, service improvements and financial remedy.

6. The Practice prescribed Mr B venlafaxine (an antidepressant) in 1998. Mr B decided to stop taking the medication in 2020. He says the Practice did not review his venlafaxine use or monitor him during this 22-year period.

7. In January 2024, Mr B suffered a hypertensive crisis and has had ongoing symptoms since then including fatigue, pain and anxiety. In May 2025, Mr B requested his GP records as part of a benefit application and says he learnt the Practice had not reviewed his medication or monitored him during the time venlafaxine had been prescribed.

9. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of an issue (date of awareness). 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 Mr B to understand his date of awareness and the complaint timeline. We have also explored why he complained when he did.

10. Mr B told us he became aware there were issues with the Practice’s handling of his venlafaxine prescribing and monitoring over the course of 22 years in May 2025. He told us he had requested his medical records from the Practice to support a recent benefits claim. Mr B had been off work since January 2024 when he was hospitalised with a severe episode of high blood pressure. He told us he had been suffering with various symptoms since then.

11. Mr B said that this subject access request (SAR) provided very little information for such a considerable amount of time and this raised his suspicions as to why there was no documented evidence of his long-term venlafaxine use. Mr B told us he then started researching venlafaxine and discovered the Practice should have been giving him regular reviews and monitoring.

12. When we asked Mr B why he decided to stop venlafaxine in 2020 after nearly 22 years taking it, he told us that he had just had enough. He went on to say that he wished to do simple things again such as play the guitar but one of the effects of taking venlafaxine was a loss of feeling in his fingers. Mr B told us that being on venlafaxine for so long had made him feel mentally numb and it was only when he stopped taking it that he realised the impact it had had on his life for so many years.

13. Mr B also told us how he felt the hypertensive crisis he suffered in January 2024 and the continuing symptoms since then are a direct effect of the long term, unmonitored venlafaxine use.

14. We recognise that Mr B may not have been aware that the Practice should have been giving him regular reviews and monitoring for his venlafaxine use before the information disclosed in his SAR made him begin researching. However, we consider that Mr B was aware of some of the impacts venlafaxine had been having on him when he stopped taking it in 2020. This is because he told us it was only after stopping the medication that he realised the effect it had been having on him for so long.

15. We also recognise the more serious impact Mr B says he suffered was only realised more recently when he was admitted to hospital in January 2024 and he learnt more about the potential links between long term venlafaxine use and high blood pressure. Our SMG section 2.278 says a complainant may be aware of an issue at the time but not experience a serious impact until a later date. It says the date a complainant had notice to complain is when they were first aware of an issue, not when the injustice became serious enough they decided to complain about it.

16. Although Mr B says he had a more serious impact come to light between 2024 and 2025, as considered above, we are of the view he was aware of some of the impact the medication had been having on him when he stopped taking it in 2020. We consider this was the date of awareness because he had reason to ask the Practice why he had been on it for so long, given the effect he now knew it had been having on him for so many years.

17. We are also of the opinion that Mr B must have had some level of awareness that there was a potential lack of monitoring happening by 2020 at the latest when he stopped the medication. He told us he had received no communication from the Practice for many years. The fact he did not know it was a requirement to have regular reviews until his own research made him aware after the 2025 SAR is irrelevant, because we consider Mr B knew the Practice had not contacted him in several years, nor had Mr B contacted the Practice, despite continuing to take prescribed medication.

18. For the issue of the Practice not making Mr B aware of the side effects of stopping venlafaxine, we consider his date of awareness also to be 2020 at the latest. This is because it will have been at this point that Mr B became aware of the side effects when stopping the medication. We are also of the view that Mr B could have contacted the Practice himself to discuss stopping venlafaxine before doing so without medical guidance. The patient information leaflet for this medication states that it should not be discontinued or reduced without medical advice.

19. Given our consideration of Mr B’s date of awareness to be early 2020, for his complaint to be in time, it should have reached us by early 2021. Mr B complained to the Practice on 10 July 2025, and the Practice responded on 11 August. Mr B raised further concerns to the Practice on 3 October before submitting his complaint form to us on 29 October 2025. His complaint was officially opened with us on 18 December 2025. As Mr B’s complaint should have reached us by early 2021, his complaint is therefore almost five years out of time.

20. We have considered the reasons why Mr B did not complain to us earlier. Between early 2021, when we would have expected Mr B’s complaint to have reached us by, and May 2025 when he requested his medical records from the Practice, Mr B said he did not complain as he was unaware of the lack of monitoring of his venlafaxine use. Our view on this matter has been outlined above.

21. We acknowledge that when Mr B complained to the Practice after his SAR, he did so without delay and did not delay in bringing his complaint to us following the final response. Unfortunately, we consider Mr B’s date of awareness is much earlier than he considers and therefore the complaint is nearly five years out of time.

22. We recognise this decision may be disappointing to Mr B and appreciate that a great deal of effort has gone into him pursuing his concerns since May 2025. We have established Mr B’s date of awareness and considered the reasons why he did not complain sooner. We do not believe there are grounds to set aside the time limit in this case and will not be taking any further action.

1. We have carefully considered Mr B’s complaint about a practice in the North Devon area (the Practice). We were very sorry to hear about the experience Mr B has had with the Practice and the questions it has raised which caused a loss of faith in the Practice.

2. We have decided Mr B’s complaint falls outside of our time limit and do not believe there are grounds for us to set aside our time limit in this case. For this reason, we have decided not to consider the complaint further.