Decision on the PHSO website ↗ All PHSO decisions
The complaint, background, findings, decision and recommendations on this page are the PHSO's published words. First-person wording refers to the Ombudsman.
1. We have carefully considered Ms A’s complaint about AJM Healthcare (AJM). She is unhappy with the way it managed her wheelchair provision, and with the way it communicated with her over a very long period. We know not having a fully functioning wheelchair had a significant impact on her, and know this experience was very distressing.
2. We think there were some instances where AJM did not act as it should have. It has therefore agreed to pay Mrs A £1,200 to acknowledge the impact of what it got wrong.
3. We think this resolves the impact without the need for us to investigate further.
From: PHSO decision P-006063, 26 August 2026, on the PHSO website ↗
4. Ms A complains about the wheelchair service provided by AJM. She complains about its handling of concerns she raised since April 2022 about a persistent fault on her wheelchair which means it is unsafe on ramps. Specifically she says: • her concerns have been ignored or minimised and AJM will not acknowledge there is a fault with the model of chair, instead blaming her for the faults • there have been long delays in replacing the chair or providing repairs even when AJM said those were necessary
5. As a result of the failings, Ms A says she suffered distress and frustration over a number of years. She has experienced a loss of independence because she is unable to safely use ramps to her mobility vehicle and in the community.
6. Ms A would like AJM to offer her a financial remedy to recognise the significant impact its actions have had for her.
7. Ms A uses an electronically powered wheelchair. Her wheelchair is provided by AJM, who are contracted to provide this service by the NHS through her local Integrated Care Board (ICB).
8. In April 2022, Ms A’s wheelchair developed a problem with the footplate. Ms A raised the issue with AJM and it took AJM several attempts to identify the issue.
9. AJM fixed the wheelchair in December 2022. Shortly after this happened Ms A reported her wheelchair would no longer go up her ramp into her vehicle. Engineers attended Ms A’s home in January but when they were with her she was able to get up her ramp in the chair. This issue continued intermittently afterwards.
10. In May 2023 AJM agreed to order Ms A a new wheelchair, which it provided in November. However, Ms A continued to encounter the same fault going up ramps with her new wheelchair.
11. In June 2024 AJM provided Ms A with a different type of wheelchair. Unfortunately, Ms A did not feel comfortable or safe in this wheelchair chair and continued to use her previous wheelchair, which she worried still had the intermittent fault.
12. In January 2025 an AJM engineer confirmed some parts were known to wear on the wheelchair and would need replacing at regular intervals.
13. In January 2026 AJM provided a new wheelchair to Ms A.
Issue 1 – handling of concerns, communication and blame for fault
17. 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.
18. Our Principles say public bodies should communicate effectively and behave helpfully and be open and accountable for any mistakes.
19. They say public bodies should ensure customers understand what they can and cannot expect. Public bodies should do what they say they are going to do and if they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it.
20. Ms A does not believe AJM has taken her concerns seriously, especially given the significant impact not having a fully functioning wheelchair has had on her. She says AJM blamed her for misusing her wheelchair when the equipment would not work properly. She says it denied there were any faults, although AJM later did admit there was a known issue affecting other users with the same wheelchair.
21. Ms A raised her concerns in numerous emails from November 2021 onwards, which included three formal complaints.
22. AJM only provided a formal complaint response on 18 May 2023. It acknowledged that its communication up to that point had been poor. It apologised for the difficulties Ms A experienced in communicating with them and said it would take her feedback on board to improve its services.
23. Ms A continued to have problems and raise concerns about the service AJM provided to her. In January 2025 AJM told her it would respond to her outstanding concerns and explain the reasons it had not been able to fix the issues with her chair. Despite chasing several times, Ms A never received a formal response.
24. Having reviewed AJM’s communication during this period we do not think it acted in line with our Principles.
25. Ms A has told us AJM repeatedly blamed her for the difficulties she experienced with her equipment. For instance, she described how AJM engineers suggested the problems with her wheelchair were due to her use of the chair or the ramp on her vehicle. This must have been very upsetting for Ms A to hear.
26. We can see AJM has denied there were faults with the equipment, including in communications with us. However, we have also seen email communications where AJM acknowledged there was a known issue with the same type of wheelchair which had affected a number of users. This evidence only came to light during our consideration of the case.
27. We think this shows AJM’s communication around this issue has been unclear and contradictory and it has not taken responsibility when it has found something to be wrong. This does not appear to be in line with our Principles.
28. Ms A has explained how challenging her ongoing communication with AJM has been for her. She described the frustration and distress caused by AJM’s lack of timely responses, its unclear messaging, and its apparent unwillingness to take responsibility for the issues she experienced. Ms A’s correspondence with AJM spans several years, and there were gaps caused by its failure to respond.
Issue 2 – delays in repairing and replacing the wheelchair
29. The contract to provide wheelchair provision says the provider should provide a repair service which for non-urgent repairs should take place within three days (14.3). AJM’s subcontract says it must provide service ‘promptly’ (1.1.1).
30. Ms A complains AJM has been slow to repair and replace her chair over a very long period and through several issues.
31. In April 2022, the footplates on her wheelchair were scraping along the floor and causing frustration and discomfort to her. This appears to have been fixed in December 2022, after she raised a formal complaint the previous month. This does not appear to be a prompt repair in line with the contracts.
32. After this repair Ms A reported an intermittent fault which prevented her from reliably leaving her house due to trouble getting her wheelchair up ramps, including the one in her vehicle. We know this would have greatly affected her independence and ability to lead a normal life.
33. We think the evidence suggest there was a known fault with Ms A’s type of wheelchair, and this did impact her intermittently over a long period.
34. While we can see AJM did try to assist by sending several engineers over this time, we do not think it always did so in line with the timescale in its contract. For example, Ms A reported the fault in December 2022 and AJM engineers did not attend until more than one month later, and they were unable to fix the problem. This is outside of the timescales set out in the contract. While Ms A was not always able to evidence the fault, the intermittent nature of it meant this was not unexpected but would have still had an impact on her.
35. AJM provided Ms A with a different type of chair in June 2024. Given this had been going on for 18 months, and was a known recurrent fault with her chair, we do not think this was a prompt response to the problem she was having in line with its sub-contract.
36. Overall, we think AJM did not always act in line with the timescales it should have in repairing and replacing Ms A’s wheelchair.
37. Ms A clearly lost confidence in AJM. We acknowledge there was a widespread fault with her preferred chair, and she was unable to use a different chair. But we can see how the delays AJM sorting this out caused her distress and inconvenience.
Resolution
38. Based on what we have seen so far we think AJM did not communicate with Ms A as it should have over a very long period, between 2022 and 2025. We also think AJM caused Ms A frustration from April 2022 with delays to its service. Ms A has subsequently completely lost faith with AJM and damaged the ongoing relationship she has with it. We know she is very concerned about how the situation would go if a further fault developed in the future.
39. We have considered our financial remedy guidance. We think the impact on Ms A falls within level 3 of our severity of injustice scale. As these issues went on for a long time, we think this falls in the higher end of the scale.
40. AJM has agreed to pay Ms A £1,200, which is the very top of level 3. We consider this is in line with what we might recommend were we to investigate further.
41. In closing we would like to acknowledge the significant impact on Ms A given she relies on her wheelchair to be able to live her life. We know this has greatly affected her over a long period.