AJM Healthcare

4. Ms D complains AJM took ten months to provide her with a new powered wheelchair that was suitable for her needs. She says its communication with her while she was waiting was poor.

5. Ms D complains she had to rely on an older, obsolete wheelchair. The wheelchair no longer met her needs. As a result of this, she fell out of it and suffered an injury. Ms D did not feel safe in her wheelchair and did not feel confident to leave the house.

6. Ms D wants AJM to acknowledge the mistakes it made and apologise for the impact they had on her. She wants it to pay financial compensation and make service improvements.

7. Ms D has been using a wheelchair for over 20 years after she was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, a genetic condition causing muscle weakness in her legs. She has had several powered wheelchairs, but this was the first time AJM had provided her NHS-funded wheelchair service.

8. Ms D’s GP referred her into AJM’s service in December 2024 for a replacement powered wheelchair and she was assessed in January 2025.

9. Ms D contacted AJM to find out what was happening several times throughout April and May 2025. She also made formal complaints in May and July 2025, and sought support from her MP.

10. AJM delivered Ms D’s replacement powered wheelchair in October 2025.

13. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened, with what did happen. If what happened fell short of what should have happened, we call this a failing.

14. To help us understand what should have happened from when AJM received the referral, we have looked at its contract with the ICB. This outlines what NHS-funded services AJM should provide for people living in the ICB’s jurisdiction. Importantly for this complaint, it outlines the timescales for AJM to provide these services. It sets out a complete service should be provided within 18 weeks. To meet this target, it recommends these timescales:

• From receipt of referral to assessment (standard) – within six weeks • From assessment to completion of prescription – one working day • From prescription to delivery: • Locally held stock – within three weeks • Orders from manufacturers – within six weeks • Made to measure (bespoke seating) – six to 12 weeks.

15. AJM received Ms D’s referral in December 2024. We do not know the exact date, only that it was just before Christmas. AJM assessed her for a replacement powered wheelchair on 27 January 2025. So the timing of the assessment was in line with the contract.

16. We know Ms D’s wheelchair had additional features which she was funding herself. We do not know if these features could be ordered as usual from a manufacturer or if they needed to be custom made. But in line with the contract’s recommended timescales, AJM should have produced a prescription by 28 January and then a replacement powered wheelchair with Ms D’s additional features within six to 12 weeks, at the latest by 22 April.

17. AJM did not deliver a wheelchair within this timeframe. It delivered the new wheelchair in October 2025, around six months late. So it appears AJM did not act in line with its contract with the ICB.

18. Ms D has told us AJM’s communication with her about the process was poor. She said when AJM assessed her in January 2025, it said the wheelchair would be ready within four to five months. She believed her order would be placed straight away. When she received the funding paperwork a month later, AJM did not tell her it would not place the order until she completed and returned it. AJM told her this when she chased her order in April and she returned the paperwork on the same day. Ms D told us she chased her order again on 14 May, and AJM told her it would be a further eight to 12 months before she would get her wheelchair.

19. Our Principles of Good Administration set out how public bodies should act. AJM was commissioned by a public body – the ICB – to provide a service on its behalf. Our Principles say public bodies should communicate effectively and behave helpfully. They should make sure customers understand what they can and cannot expect from the public body. They should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it, or explain why they cannot.

20. We do not think AJM acted in line with our Principles here. It appears to have given her two different timeframes for providing her new wheelchair, both of which were considerably longer than its contract with the ICB recommends. It also did not explain the necessity of Ms D completing the paperwork promptly, and that her wheelchair would not be ordered until the paperwork had been returned. So there are indications of failings in AJM’s communication with Ms D.

21. When we think there were failings, we next look at whether these had a negative impact on the person involved.

22. Ms D has told us she had no choice but to rely on an old powered wheelchair that was no longer fit for purpose. Its parts had become obsolete so it could not be maintained or replaced. Ms D did try to use it, but this resulted in her falling out of the wheelchair, sustaining bruises. She lost confidence to use it, which meant she could not leave the house.

23. This had a huge impact on Ms D’s independence. As she did not have the use of a reliable, powered wheelchair, she could not get to work and she had no choice but to permanently work from home. She had to rely on her family to help her with day to day tasks that she would usually do independently using her powered wheelchair.

24. Next, we considered what, if anything, AJM has done to try to put things right. During our primary investigation, AJM offered to contact Ms D to attempt to resolve the matter for her. We asked Ms D if she was open to this offer, and she agreed to accept a telephone call.

25. AJM offered to write to Ms D to acknowledge the mistakes it made, to apologise and to pay her £300 to recognise the impact on her of those mistakes. AJM also set out its learning from this complaint, that it needs to be clearer with its service users on the timeline for them receiving their equipment.

26. The ‘NHS Complaint Standards’ say organisations should identify suitable and appropriate ways to put things right for people who raise a complaint. They provide guidance and resources to make sure any proposed action to put things right is consistent. We have thought about what AJM has offered to do for Ms D to resolve this complaint. We think these actions are in line with the Standards.

27. Ms D told us she is happy with the discussion she had with AJM’s representative and the actions AJM has committed to complete. She has confirmed these put things right for her.

28. We appreciate how difficult it was for Ms D during the ten months she was waiting for her wheelchair, and we are pleased to hear she considers this matter resolved.

1. We have carefully considered Ms D’s complaint about how AJM Healthcare (AJM) managed her NHS funded wheelchair provision. It appears AJM did not follow the terms of the contract it had with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care Board (the ICB) because it took six months longer than it should have to replace Ms D’s powered wheelchair.

2. AJM has looked at the service it provided for Ms D again and contacted her to offer to resolve the complaint. It will acknowledge the mistakes it made and apologise and pay her compensation for the impact they had on her. It has also identified where it can make service improvements. Ms D has confirmed she considers this puts things right for her.

3. We are sorry to read about the challenges Ms D faced when she was waiting for her replacement wheelchair. We appreciate how difficult it was for her when she had to rely on a piece of equipment that did not meet her needs. We think the actions AJM has agreed to take to put things right for Ms D are in line with the NHS Complaint Standards and we are pleased to hear she is satisfied with the outcome.