Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust

3. Mr J complains about aspects of care provided by Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust. He specifically complains that:

• staff showed a lack of willingness to offer any help or assistance with his mental health • staffed showed a lack of support, care and understanding • staff continued to refer him to primary care, despite knowing that he is unable to access his local GP • an emergency referral (24 hour) to a hospital to review wrist damage was not done • a medication review into a prescription for clozapine was not done • a referral to the Forensic Outreach Liaison Service (FOLS) was supposed to be made, but he has not been contacted by them.

4. Mr J also complains about the response he received from the Patient Advice Liaison Service (PALS) after his complaint. He states that the response did not fully address all the points raised in his complaint, was lacking in detail and was written in a condescending tone.

5. Mr J says that his mental and emotional health have been devastated and this is leading to damages in his physical health. He has physically harmed himself and put himself in dangerous situations. Due to this, he continues to be arrested and face criminal charges.

6. Mr J would like to achieve a sincere apology from Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust and PALS. He would like mental health support to be put in place for himself and systemic changes to the mental health support system, so that similar things do not happen again to others. Mr J is also seeking a financial remedy or around £20,000 due to the mental, emotional and physical stress claimed to have experienced.

7. What follows is a summary of the complaint components. We have not included all the details as both parties to the complaint are aware of them.

8. Mr J states he was placed on Special Allocations Scheme for primary care following an incident at a surgery. The Special Allocation Scheme (SAS) is an NHS service that provides secure GP care for patients removed from regular practices.

9. The SAS service is not local to Mr J, and he requires either a taxi or a lift from his partner to access it. Mr J does not take public transport due to anxieties surrounding being touched.

10. On 2 May 2023 during a consultation, the practice then followed up initiating a referral to FOLS. Mr J states that he was never contacted by FOLS.

11. Mr J made a complaint to Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust on 21 June 2024.

12. The PALS and Complaints Team responded to Mr J’s complaint on 10 October 2025.

13. Mr J submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 October 2025.

14. Further information was provided by Mr J on 4 November 2025.

17. For any complaint the Ombudsman receives, the HSCA states the Ombudsman must first consider if there is a legal route to achieving the remedy sought.

18. This is contained within section 4(1)b of the act, which states the Ombudsman shall not investigate if there is a remedy by proceeding the complaint through any court of law.

19. Further to this, the HSCA states that the Ombudsman must be satisfied that in considering the personal circumstances of a complainant, it is not reasonable to expect the complainant to start legal proceedings.

20. This translates into our own policy referred to as a ‘two stage legal test’ that we must look at before any consideration of a complaint. The two stages being is there a legal route and is it reasonable for the complainant to pursue?

Is there a legal route?

21. From talking to Mr J, we recognise the strength of feeling that he considers negligence has occurred and is seeking financial redress, as well as mixed outcomes. Mr J states that his mental, emotional and physical health has been impacted greatly by these events, and he constantly feels that his concerns are not being taken seriously by anyone involved.

22. We recognise on occasions through the determination of a court explanations and apologies can be a byproduct.

23. As informed by the HSCA, the Ombudsman is unable to tell an NHS Trust how to spend its funding and what services to provide or not. Therefore, we would not be able to pursue the request to put mental health services in place for Mr J.

24. In reaching our view, we consider if a complaint has an alternative legal remedy in relation to their complaint, based on the remedy they are seeking, one that a court could reach determination on.

25. In email correspondence, Mr J stated that he believes £20,000 is an appropriate figure based on the matters outlined in his complaint. During the initial phone call though, Mr J stated that he had given the figure of £20,000 in a rage. He still wants financial redress, although he did not state the amount he would like.

Is it reasonable to pursue a legal claim?

26. Next, after establishing there is a legal route, we have gone onto explore with Mr J if it is reasonable for him to pursue.

27. When considering reasonableness, the factors we take into account are based on the individual circumstances of a complaint such as (though not an exhaustive list of considerations): if the costs are proportionate to the legal claim; if financial mean to pursue a claim are in place; how long legal proceeding may take; the age and health circumstances of the complainant; if there are any other circumstances which may impact on this.

28. On 29 June 2026, we spoke to Mr J to understand the complaint, the injustices he says he has faced resulting from his experiences and whether legal action would be reasonable for him to pursue.

29. Mr J stated during a call that legal action was not his first point of call, as he would prefer by choice to go with the PHSO but that he would willingly proceed with legal action if necessary.

30. In further email correspondence with Mr J, alternative legal remedies were spoken about and how they would likely be the better route for Mr J to take regarding remedying his claimed injustices.

31. In his reply to the above email, Mr J did not make any indication that a legal route would be inappropriate for himself.

32. During these discussions therefore, we were not made aware of any other surrounding circumstances or reasons which leads us to consider it unreasonable to pursue a legal route.

33. To gain clarity on the financial redress that Mr J wants, we emailed him on three separate occasions. These were 16 July 2026, 17 July 2026 and 20 July 2026. We did not receive a reply from Mr J and so was not able to clarify the amount of financial redress he seeks.

34. From conducting typology checks into similar complaints we have upheld and the financial amounts, if we were to have looked at the complaint and found failings and injustice linked to this and considered not enough was done and financial remedy suitable we noted this to be in a significantly lower amount of awards at the lower end of our severity of injustice scale Financial remedy | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)

35. Though we have not been able to discuss this with Mr J's, we face a situation without that conversation asking should we withdraw the complaint, at this stage noting Mr J’s willingness to pursue a legal route we believe it is in Mr J’s best interests to have issued the decision based on alternative legal and for him to explore this route first as with legal representation (if achieved) a court may be able to determine the larger financial remedy.

36. We consider therefore; Mr J does have a legal route (though we are not reaching a view on the success of a claim). This is because financial redress is significant and wide-ranging amounts can be made as a binding determination through the courts if negligence is found and upheld. We also recognise that as a biproduct of court, a recognition of harm and apologies can sometimes be provided. An improvement of standards can also be achieved.

In summary

37. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have engaged with Mr J to understand his outcomes and if it is reasonable to pursue a legal route.

38. In doing so, we recognise Mr J’s claimed injustice is negligence in the lack of mental health support and his impact is a significant deterioration in her mental, emotional and physical health. He has told us he is seeking for mental health support to be put in place for himself, and we recognise his other remedies, an apology from the Trust along with systemic changes and financial compensation, may also be achieved as a biproduct of a court. Therefore, we consider there may be a legal route.

39. We recognise the claimed impact this has had on Mr J, not just his care but the claimed impact on his mental, emotional and physical health because of the removal of mental health support and the issues of taking clozapine for a long period of time. We note (informed by our own policy section 2.298) that Mr J can return to us with any outcomes not achieved through the courts afterwards, that in doing so, we strongly advise Mr J pursues matters as there are time limits to the Ombudsman considering complaints (details can be found here https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint/what-we-can-and-cant-help)

40. For the reasons we have provided, we shall take no further action on the complaint as an alternative legal route exists and it is reasonable to pursue.

1. We have carefully considered Mr J’s complaint about Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust. We are sorry to learn of his concerns regarding his issues obtaining mental health support and staff being unprofessional towards him.

2. We recognise the emotional, mental and physical pain Mr J told us he battles with every day, the challenges faced and how this has affected himself and those around him. In speaking with Mr J, we consider he could take legal action on the matter he brought to us, and it is reasonable for him to do so.