Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

4. Miss O and Mrs M complain about aspects of care and treatment their mother, Mrs O, received from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) between May and December 2024.

5. They say the Trust’s failings in care and treatment caused their mother unnecessary pain and suffering in the lead up to her death. This was extremely distressing for the family and the memory will live with them forever.

6. By bringing this complaint to us they are seeking financial remedy for multiple family members impacted by these events.

9. The Ombudsman’s powers are set out in the law. This says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware they have a need to complain. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.

Dates of events and knowledge

10. Mrs O was an inpatient at the Trust for a week in May 2024, five days in late November 2024, and was readmitted to the Trust in mid-December until she sadly died on 20 December 2024.

11. Miss O and Mrs M complain about the care and treatment their mother received from the Trust during the lead up to her death in December 2024.

12. Therefore, we consider their date of knowledge for the concerns, at the very latest, is 20 December 2024.

Our consideration

13. For Miss O and Mrs M’s complaint to be within our time limit, they would have needed to bring the complaint to us within 12 months of their date of knowledge. This means they would have needed to complain to us by December 2025.

14. Our records show they did not bring the complaint to us until February 2026. This means they bought the complaint to us two months outside of our time limit.

15. To help us understand the reasons for this delay, we first reviewed the timeline of the complaints process with the Trust.

16. Miss O and Mrs M complained to the Trust in June 2025. This is six months after their date of knowledge.

17. The Trust responded early August 2025. This is just over one month after Miss O and Mrs M made the complaint.

18. In late November 2025, they returned to the Trust with further concerns. This is three months after the Trust’s first complaint response.

19. The Trust provided a final response on 15 January 2026. This is just over one month after Miss O returned with concerns.

20. Miss O and Mrs M bought the complaint to us mid-February 2026.

21. From this timeline, we can see the longest delays were the time it took from December 2024, Miss O and Mrs M’s date of knowledge, to raise their complaint with the Trust and, the time they took to return to the Trust with concerns following it’s first response.

22. As such, we discussed the reasons behind these delays with Miss O and Mrs M.

23. Miss O told us the reason behind both delays is because, following her mother’s death herself and Mrs M suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

24. She said Mrs M had terrible palpitations and was unable to eat for many months.

25. Miss O told us she experienced panic attacks. She also has a diagnosis of long Covid, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and experienced a chronic relapse in April 2025.

26. Miss O also told us her family were grieving the loss of her mother as well as having to cope with the way she died. She said for the sake of their mental health and wellbeing they decided not to progress the complaint with the Trust until they were able to do so. She said they wrote to the Trust, then to an advocacy service and then to the Ombudsman.

27. We discussed what changed in June 2025 that meant she could complain to the Trust. Miss O told us she woke up and thought she had the strength to do this for her mother.

28. We have carefully considered the reasons Miss O gave for the delay in bringing the complaint to the Trust and to us. We do not doubt that her mother’s death, and the family’s concerns about her care, caused grief and distress.

29. Miss O told us both herself and Mrs M suffer from PTSD, although they have not received a formal diagnosis of this or received any specific treatment for it.

30. In considering whether to set our time limits aside, we can take account of the impact of the person’s health and emotional state. However, we generally need clear evidence that their condition was so severe it prevented them from raising their concerns or seeking help to do so.

31. In this case, there is no clinical evidence of either Miss O or Mrs M being diagnosed with PTSD. Miss O also explained they chose not to talk about events for a period to cope and grieve.

32. While we fully understand that reaction, and recognise it may have made complaining more difficult, we do not consider it shows they were unable to complain or seek support. They were aware of and had the option of advocacy services or other family members as mentioned in the complaint form, that could have helped them complain during this period.

33. Miss O also explained she has long Covid and CFS which was diagnosed in April 2021. She told us she has physiotherapy appointments for this every six weeks. She also told us she experienced a chronic relapse of this in April 2025.

34. We recognise these conditions can have a substantial impact on someone’s energy levels, functioning and ability to manage daytoday tasks, and we do not underestimate the difficulties they are likely to have caused Miss O.

35. However, these conditions were present from 2021 onwards and were being managed with regular physiotherapy. On their own, they do not explain the whole period of delay, nor do they show that Miss O was completely unable to raise concerns or seek assistance with doing so. This is because she still had these conditions when she did raise the complaint to the Trust.

36. We accept that the relapse in April 2025 may have affected her personal ability to progress matters at that time, but this does not account for the earlier delays. This would also not have prevented other family members, like Mrs M, from helping her raise the complaint sooner.

37. Miss O and Mrs M mentioned contacting advocacy services and, in her complaint form, they mentioned three other family members seeking financial remedy due to the impact of the claimed failings. This shows that Miss O was aware advocacy services were available to help bring the complaint. There were also other family members involved in the complaint who could have potentially helped in raising concerns earlier, even if Miss O or Mrs M did not feel able to do this themselves.

38. In light of this, we think it would have been reasonable for Miss O or Mrs M, with support from advocacy services or other relatives, to raise their complaint with the Trust sooner.

39. Taking all of this into account, we recognise Miss O and Mrs M were grieving, distressed and that this, together with Miss O’s physical health conditions, understandably made initially complaining to the Trust more difficult.

40. We do not consider there is enough evidence these factors prevented them from bringing their complaint or getting help to bring it within our time limits. For this reason, we do not think the reasons given are sufficient to set our time limit aside in this case.

41. We also looked specifically at the delay of around three months between the Trust’s first response and Miss O and Mrs M returning to the Trust with their further concerns. Miss O told us the reasons for this delay were the same as those set out above.

42. We have already taken full account of their grief, distress and Miss O’s health conditions, including her longstanding diagnosis of long Covid and CFS and her relapse in April 2025.

43. By the time of this threemonth delay, Miss O and Mrs M had already managed to make a complaint to the Trust despite those difficulties. This shows they were able to set out their concerns and engage with the complaints process. In that context, we do not consider the same reasons are sufficient to justify a further threemonth delay in going back to the Trust once the response had been received.

Summary of our decision

44. We have carefully considered the reasons for the delays identified above. We recognise how distressing the loss of Mrs O must have been for Miss O and Mrs M. We were sorry to hear about the difficulties Miss O and Mrs M went through.

45. Having considered the time taken, we think it would have been reasonable for Miss O and Mrs M to complain sooner.

46. We have not identified sufficient reasons to enable us to put the time limit aside. We will therefore be closing the case and taking no further action.

47. We thank Miss O and Mrs M for bringing their complaint to us and for telling us about what happened. It is clear from the information provided how upsetting these events have been. We are so sorry to hear about this. We must apply our time limit fairly. We do not underestimate how difficult this time has been for Miss O and Mrs M and recognise how important the complaint is to them. Our decision is not intended to detract from these difficult events.

1. We have carefully considered Miss O and Mrs M’s complaint about the care and treatment their mother, Mrs O, received from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust).

2. We were sorry to learn about the loss of their mother and for the concerns they have about her care and treatment. We recognise this has been a very distressing time for them.

3. After careful consideration, we have decided not to consider the complaint further. This is because the complaint falls outside of our time limit and we have not seen strong enough reasons to set this time limit aside. We have explained the reasons for this below.