The decision was initially made to combine my complaints against CAMHS, Bramblys Drive and CMHT the Bridge Centre into one over-arching investigation led by Wanda Reynolds. By the time I received her response designated SP22020 and co-signed by Vicky Long it was already out of date.  

Revisions doubled the size of my complaint, taking into account the disturbing revelations made in my partially disclosed medical records. While my own ongoing investigations continued to uncover multiple failures and prompt further questions for at least another year, the following document was the final one to be accepted by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. After that they tried to wash their hands of it, happy for me to forward it on to the black hole that is the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman. More about the failings of the ombudsman later. Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust repossessed their portion of my complaints and, in stark contrast to their colleagues at the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, revealed an attitude of contrition and cooperation that endures, even to this day. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Writing these blog entries affords me an opportunity to examine documents like ‘MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH July 2022’ with considerable hindsight. I was brutally aware, at the time, that I was being misled on key points. I just didn’t know how much further evidence proving dishonesty and gross incompetence was still being fiercely guarded. Much important information is still, without doubt, being withheld and I haven’t always known what to ask for. I didn’t know what I didn’t know.

What follows is a heavily edited version of ‘MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH July 2022’. I have copied and pasted some of the parts that I think will especially interest the reader. I can publish the full, forty-two page document later if there is sufficient appetite for it.

'MY COMPLAINT REVISED 30TH July 2022   Complaint reference no SP 22020

 Dear Wanda,

Thank you for your response to my formal complaint made against Camhs and the Bridge centre, received by me on Wednesday 20th July. My formal complaint was received and acknowledged by  Stephanie Pearson Senior Complaints and PALS Officer by email on the 23rd May  2022. Stephanie Pearson informed me that I should expect a response by 29th June. Your response was sent via Stephanie Pearson and received by me three weeks behind schedule. In between the date that my complaint was acknowledged and today, 23rd July 2022 I have received my ( partial?) medical records following an access to records request that I made separately of the Sussex Partnership with respect to Camhs and to Southern Health with respect to the Bridge Centre. I was also invited to attend a meeting with you, Wanda Reynolds General Manager of Hampshire Camhs and Vicky Long, Meadows CMHT Service Manager on the 20th May 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss my concerns around the care that I received from both services and to see if you or Vicky were able to resolve this for me. With all of this in mind I have deemed it necessary to revise my original complaint in order to address the new information now at my disposal.

I have reshaped my formal complaint into three parts.

Part One addresses your response to my original complaint and revisits my original questions. Part Two addresses my reaction to the meeting held with you, Vicky Long and myself on the 20th May 2022. Part two also addresses the disturbing contents of the medical records that have so far been released to me along with rebuttals to information entered into those records that I believe to be false. Part two also questions the integrity of record-keeping, particularly with reference to Camhs. Part three includes a list of things I want you to take action on. That list takes into account both Part One and Part Two of this document. Part Three also includes three letters and a final summary. I apologise in advance for the length of this document but I believe all the information contained is necessary to this reaction.

Please by mindful that my daughter, Meg, is still very much at the centre of my complaint. …***

Please read everything and respond where asked. Thank you.

PART ONE

I am really disappointed with the response to my formal complaint. Your answers to my questions listed in my original 23 page complaint document are, for the most part, lacking in substance. Some of the information used to answer my questions is factually incorrect and can be disputed when cross-referenced with information in my medical records. Also, you seem to have lost focus on the entirety of my 23 page complaint document and failed to properly address the points made in the section entitled ‘What I Would Like To Happen’. I have now revised my expectations and listed them in Part Three of this document.

First, I would like you to reassess your answers to the following questions selected from the original complaint. I ask you to consider taking appropriate action where indicated in Part Three of this document.

1)      You didn’t answer my specific question ‘Was Sally suitably experienced or trained to deal with transference within the therapeutic relationship at CAMHS, particularly when involved in parent work? I wasn’t so much interested in her credentials as I was her actual experience in dealing with ‘transference’. I recognise and acknowledge her expertise as an art therapist but I believe her experience is largely confined to children and adolescents. I believe that I am atypical, even as a parent. I carried a collection of unique traits and circumstances into the work with Sally. I am a socially isolated, single dad with an unresolved history of childhood abuse and emotional neglect. Transference was almost inevitable. Actual transference was intense. The feelings I had and still have for Sally are a powerful mix of true romantic love and intense, almost certain maternal transference. Those feelings are a very strong indication of the emotional investment I made in Sally as my therapist, partially involving unconscious attributions to her of my past experiences. There were many times when Sally was frustrated with me, especially when I articulated my feelings toward her. At other times I felt reciprocity and suspected Sally was experiencing counter-transference.  When I first declared my love for her she said that she ‘would allow it’. I have spoken to other therapists since and been informed that ‘allowing’ a declaration of love is the wrong way for a therapist to accept it. Working with transference is a foundational part of a therapist’s job. Sometimes Sally’s response to me was cold and unpleasant and at such times I think she may have been experiencing negative counter transference, adopting the persona of an uncaring mother or an abusive punishing, girlfriend. …***…More recently I have been given access to Sally’s ‘therapy session notes’ and seen an entry dated 21/10/21 that says ‘I am not his friend, nor am I his mother, punisher or girlfriend’. I do not recall any strong messaging from me at that time that I wanted Sally to fill any of these roles. My sessions with Sally were usually harrowing and painful. At one point, about half way through the three months I spent in ‘art therapy’ Sally said that she thought that the sessions were too much for me and thought she was being abusive. The Sally pleaser part of me wanted to continue as we were. And we did. I think the therapy session note entry dated 21/10/21 either points to Sally’s inexperience with transference or her struggle with counter transference. I note that she took this particular session to her supervisor. …***…So, if Sally was taking her sessions with me to supervision, why was the therapy allowed to continue as it did? Surely the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of supervisory staff and not Sally herself. Can you comment further? I desperately need to understand. ( I was given access to more of Sally Mungall’s therapy session notes long after this document was written and discovered that Sally had taken many, many more of her sessions with me to her supervisor, evidence that she was having difficulties managing her own counter-transference. Her therapy session notes dated 2nd September, 2021 are particularly concerning. I will devote an entire blog entry to the issues raised by those therapy session notes later. - Added on the 22nd June, 2025 )

2)      ‘What was the utility of the ‘parent work’ and how did it inform the therapy that was being delivered by Mark Birbeck to my daughter Meg?’  You didn’t detail how the ‘parent work’ was informing the therapy being delivered by Mark Birbeck to Meg. My understanding of ‘parent work’ from the outset was the opportunity to gain insight into my daughter’s mental health difficulties. I was particularly interested in uncovering unconscious behaviours that I might have adopted as a result of my own childhood trauma that might have been having an adverse affect on my parenting style. I learned to modify my parenting

style in order in response to my developing understanding of Meg’s mental health challenges but neither Sally nor Mark informed me if and how my own childhood trauma might have influenced my parenting style or even if it was contributing to or exacerbating Meg’s difficulties ( intergenerational trauma ).

3)      ‘Why was there no acknowledgement, no insight offered, no specific comments in the envelope of art therapy drawings I collected on 31st March?’   Your answer to this question is truly shocking, especially in light of the conversation I had with both you, Wanda, and Vicky Long during the meeting of the 20th May at the Bridge Centre. You’ll remember that I tried to describe what it felt like for me to have been abandoned in such an abrupt and insensitive manner. When the meeting that Sally and I had arranged for the 3rd Feb was dishonestly cancelled, I was left waiting for almost six weeks for someone to call and reschedule. I told you it felt like I’d had my trousers pulled down and been told to bend over and then left alone, exposed and vulnerable. That was my attempt to try and convey the feeling of absolute humiliation and abandonment that I felt while I was kept waiting. Those art therapy drawings were the first time in the whole entirety of my life that I’d even attempted to communicate the utter humiliation and degradation of my childhood abuse. I only made those drawings because of the sacred bond of trust that I had permitted between Sally and myself. Firstly, to have those drawings handed back to me by a complete stranger was truly insulting to me. Secondly, to open the envelope half way home and find no comment, no insight offered or even acknowledgement that art therapy had even taken place was absolutely sickening. Opening that envelope on the streets of Basingstoke again felt like I’d been bent over and had my trousers pulled down. It was disgusting. You’ll remember more recently that I told you that I was physically sick on the pavement after opening that envelope. It was grossly insensitive and hideously disrespectful not to have made an effort to treat the contents of that envelope with dignity and respect. I still feel sick remembering, even while writing these words. You should have known better and treated this question more sensitively. I invite you to respond to my words here.

4)      …***…

5)      ‘What is the formal policy and where are the documented procedures and guidelines pertaining to CAMHS ‘parent work’ ? Where are the empirical, multivaried studies into the ethics and efficacy of CAMHS ‘parent work’?’  You need to make a stronger commitment to reflect, evaluate and learn from a wide and diverse range of parent experiences of your services. …***…

6)      ‘Whose decision was it to unilaterally terminate me? Was it Sally’s decision to cut me off or was she persuaded or her original decision overruled by her superiors?’   All evidence uncovered in my medical records suggest that it was decided by senior managers and clinical leads that I was not to be offered a final session BECAUSE of my 12 page letter and NOT because the work with Sally had had an ending and a closing letter. That is a fact, is it not? The closing letter itself acknowledged the final session meeting arranged between Sally and myself for the 3rd Feb 2022. If there was a final session outstanding then there should not have been a closing letter. IF, on the other hand, it WAS decided that the final session was to be withdrawn BECAUSE of my 12 page letter then I should have been contacted immediately, ideally by Sally herself, and had it explained to me. Instead, I was lied to, deceived and manipulated and left hanging for almost six weeks. I would still be hanging had I not contacted Sally on 14th March.     

7)      ‘Why was the meeting with Sally on the 3rd February really cancelled? And why at such short notice? And 8) Why did I have to wait patiently and politely for almost 6 weeks without a follow up call regarding the missed 3rd February meeting?’ …***…Your answer fails to explain why I was forced to wait almost 6 weeks for the meeting to be rescheduled. The lady who phoned me the day before to tell me that ‘due to unforeseen circumstances, Sally was unable to take any of her meetings for that week ’was a blatant lie as my disclosed medical records prove. It had already been decided by a committee of ‘senior staff and clinical leads’ in an ’extensive meeting’ at Camhs early January 2022, that I was to be denied that meeting of the 3rd Feb. I told that lady that I would wait to be contacted by Camhs when Sally was able to reschedule the meeting. That lady knew full well that I was never going to have that meeting rescheduled. In fact, I now see in my medical records, during the ‘professionals meeting’ held at the Bridge Centre on the 9th February 2022 at 3pm that Sally informed everyone ‘Appt ( to collect my artwork on 3rd February ) cancelled by admin. Dad unaware that this isn’t planned to carry on.’( I was actually being monitored for my reaction ) . Clear deception. Absolutely disgusting. Nobody called me over the next almost six weeks. I was left hanging, led to believe that Sally was likely ill or troubled by personal issues. I waited patiently and politely, showing due care and consideration, all the while unaware that I was being lied to.

9)      ‘Why was a new appointment to meet to review the art therapy drawings not made before the closing letter dated 8th March? That’s almost six weeks opportunity to do the right thing.’ So, there were actually 2 closing letters. The second was actually antedated 8th March and rushed out to me on 14th March in response to my letter sent to Sally earlier that same day. The second closing letter was a panic response wasn’t it? …***…The decision to deny me the meeting had been made literally weeks before but I wasn’t informed. I was abandoned and forgotten. End of. It was cowardly, disrespectful, unprofessional and psychologically damaging to me.

10)   ‘Why was my daughter’s case closed before my case was closed? My art therapy was conducted in conjunction with my daughter’s.’ My objective was to gain insight into parenting my daughter. …***…You chose to deny me that meeting of the 3rd Feb because of my 12 page letter to Sally and NOT because the work had ended and been closed down. Clear deceit.

11)   ‘Did Sally want to change her mind or reassert her original decision to meet with me while Wanda Reynolds was investigating?’ You were apparently concerned about my emotion and the lack of clarity with regards the therapeutic boundary. What do you mean by my ‘emotion’? Do you mean my love for Sally? Why be concerned about my love? Am I not entitled to or have autonomy over my feelings? My love should be treasured and not condemned as inappropriate. I had and still have crystal clear understanding of the therapeutic boundary. I was respectful of that boundary then and continued to respect that boundary. And what distress are you alluding to? I was distressed when I first arrived at Camhs , Brambly Drive with my daughter back in February 2021. I was explicit in informing everyone that attended the emergency meeting at Camhs on the 5th February 2021 that I was suffering carer burnout and unable to cope with my daughters extreme mental health issues. I attended a final review with my daughter, my daughter’s therapist  Mark Birbeck and Sally on the 13th January. I was, understandably, distressed at the time because my daughter was about to be discharged by Camhs and we were about to be cast adrift and, arguably, no better off than we were when we first arrived at Camhs the year before. I was being advised by Sally that I needed to continue as my daughter’s main carer indefinitely or for at least another year. I was exhausted and, seeing no signs of respite, was feeling suicidal.

12)   ‘Why have I not been informed of all information relevant to me, either held by Camhs or the Bridge Centre?’   The disclosure of my medical records has been inconsistent and incomplete. …***…With reference to Sean Dale Malloy; SDM told me during a telephone conversation on 4th May 2022 that he had seen documents stating that Kirsty Henry had spoken to Sally Mungall and that it had been unilaterally agreed that Sally would be ‘cutting me off’ completely. That’s me paraphrasing but those are SDM actual words ‘cutting me off’. He used a phrase similar to ‘ documents have passed across my desk’. I was incredulous at the time and telephoned him back the following day for further details. He was deliberately vague the second time around. So who is lying? Would SDM lie in front of a judge during a suicide inquest? …***…

13)   ‘What other information has been withheld from me or not forwarded to me?’ ( AGAIN, see below under ‘RECORDS’ )

14)   ‘Why is it that I still have not been offered carers support?’  …***…I had to wait until 20th of June before Phoebe Evans, Meg’s social worker finally acquiesced and gave me a carers assessment although I’m still waiting for a response to that assessment. Nick Tuson, newly appointed Carers Peer Support Worker has only recently ( Tues 12th July ) advised that I could have accessed the local council for support. Far too little, far too late.

15)    ‘Why did Kirsty Henry not respond to my letter hand-delivered to the Bridge Centre?’   …***… No letter was ever received by me. That letter should be in my records. Why was it not included with all of my medical records released to me following my Access to Records request? I would like a copy of that letter sent to me immediately.

16)   ‘Why was complex ptsd or autism not identified in either of my mental health assessments?’   You explain that your assessors do not diagnose and do not have the clinical expertise to diagnose. You go further to explain that your assessors identify clusters of symptoms and difficulties. They later present to a senior team that includes a consulting psychiatrist and psychologist who then determine support and treatment options. So whose responsibility is it to diagnose me for complex ptsd. The relevant NHS websites state that a GP should refer a patient to a psychological therapies service ( IAPT ). I have consulted with my GP Dr E Dougan and she is very well acquainted with my health issues and understands that I am likely suffering complex ptsd. She is extremely frustrated by the Bridge Centre and their apparent inability to properly tend to my mental health issues. She supported me when I expressed concern that a referral to iTalk was inappropriate for a patient suffering from complex ptsd which is why she felt it necessary to re-refer me to the Bridge Centre in April. I have virtually all the symptoms of complex ptsd as outlined by the NHS and what I need now is to be diagnosed by a psychiatrist through a mental health assessment. I recognise my rights under the NHS Constitution and request a formal mental health assessment by a psychiatrist to diagnose complex ptsd. I have NOT accessed Hampshire Autism for my own needs. My daughter is autistic and my access to Hampshire Autism was for my daughters needs.

17)   ‘Why is it that I have two different lists of recommendations following my two separate mental health assessments made by the Bridge Centre?’ I presented identically in both assessments. The recommendation of referral to  iTalk had been made in my first assessment but iTalk had subsequently refused to take me on because of my suicidal ideation. I was recommended to self refer to iTalk after my second assessment. This was surely ill-advised? It was already evident in my medical records that I wasn’t going to be accepted by iTalk, so why the recommendation of self-referral? The recommendation following my second mental health assessment to access the Wellbeing Centre was inappropriate. The courses run by the Wellbeing Centre are not suited to those suffering from complex ptsd. I gave the recommendation the benefit of the doubt and completed the ‘emotional coping skills’ course. The course was of absolutely no benefit to me. The course instructor, Vikki, even agreed on multiple occasions that the course was not suited to me and that I specifically needed psychotherapy. Likewise, the recommendation to access the Recovery College is not appropriate. I have studied the descriptions of the courses available through the Recovery College and decided that I already have the skills that they are offering. The best treatment for me include trauma-informed therapies, especially DBT ( Dialectical Behaviour Therapy ).

18)   ‘Why should I trust either mental health assessments when the recommendations are so different?’   The consistent recommendation to access iTalk is a dead end because they will not take on anyone who is considered to be at high risk of suicide. I can see evidence in my medical records that staff at the Bridge Centre were aware that I would almost certainly be rejected by iTalk but I was recommended to self-refer to them following my second mental health assessment.

19)   ‘Why am I being denied access to my medical health records at Camhs?’  ( Again, see below under ‘RECORDS’ ) .

20)   ‘Why has it been necessary for my GP, Dr Dougan to continually and persistently chase up the Bridge Centre, iTalk and Social Services?’  …***…Dr Dougan is equally frustrated by the Bridge Centre and your apparent inability to properly attend to my mental health needs.

21)   I am glad that Laura Jones no longer works at the Bridge Centre.

22)   Laura Jones’ opening statement to me at my mental health assessment with hr was, ‘Mark. If you are so determined to kill yourself then why have you even bothered to attend this mental health assessment’? Not the question you want to hear when you are expecting tact and compassion.

23)   As above

24)   Your apologies here are accepted.

25)    ‘Will I have access to the document seen by Sean Dale Malloy that details the unilateral decision made by Kirsty Henry and Sally to ‘cut me off’ from Sally? I never made the claim that Kirsty Henry or Sean Dale Malloy had made that decision to ‘cut me off’ from Sally. …***…I was reporting SDM’s actual words to me during telephone conversations on the 5th and 6th of May. I have, more recently, been given access to my medical records and I can see an abundance of note and record taking detailing Camhs decision to deny me the meeting with Sally on the 3rd of February and the despicable strategies by both Camhs and the Bridge Centre to monitor me, surveil me, misrepresent me etc following that decision. SDM had, in all likelihood, been given access to those notes and records and it was this information that he was referring to. I can only imagine what mischief was in SDM’s mind when he decided to let slip that such ‘documents had passed across his desk’ ( my paraphrasing ). He was fully aware of my state of mind and the psychological damage that such information would cause me. Really disgusting, or at the very least, irresponsible behaviour on his part.   ( Evidence disclosed by way of an Access to Records made by my daughter, Meg, toward the end of 2023 revealed that Sean Dale Malloy HAD actually been in communication with Sally Mungall at the time and HAD been in possession of documents, including two of my personal handwritten letters to Sally Mungall. Kirsty Henry had taken possession of these two letters and forwarded them to SDM. So, documents HAD passed across his desk. I consider the sharing of these personal handwritten letters to be a gross violation of ethical standards. It should also be noted that SDM lied to the Southern Health investigator, Farayi Nyakubaya, on this matter. I later complained to Gemma Stubbington, now Head of Nursing, Professions and Quality for Mid and North Area, Southern Health, and asked for the return of those letters. Gemma investigated but later confirmed that the letters had been 'LOST'. - Added on the 22nd June, 2025 ).

26)   ‘Was Wanda Reynolds privy to the decision to ‘cut me off’ from Sally?  I am, at time of writing, still awaiting records of the notes taken at the time of the ‘extensive meeting’ that will, hopefully, name the professional lead staff involved and outline their rationale in making their decision. ( See ‘RECORDS’ below ).

27)   ‘Why was my mental health allowed to deteriorate to the point where I felt my only option was, and still is, suicide?’   My disclosed medical records show Sally Mungall’s urgent referral of my case to CRHT on the 13th January 2022 drawing attention to my suicidal ideation. Then again during a phone call from Sally Mungall to Ian Whaites on 31st January 2022 to express her concern that ‘no one is going in and seeing them’ ( my daughter and myself ) with reference to my talking about my suicidality along with ‘Both short term and long term risk...Risk remains the same, it’s not being picked up by the crisis team.’ And yet the very next day, the 1st February 2022 the CRHT Team convened at 11.04 and deemed my ‘Risk to self as LOW’?! and yet deemed my ‘Risk to others as MODERATE’- Obsessional?! ( hindsight demonstrates this to be flawed reasoning as history proves that I was NEVER a risk to anyone other than myself ). Kirsty Henry’s report following her mental health assessment of me on the 8th of February  accurately states my ‘Risk to self as HIGH’ ‘Mark is at high risk of ending his life..’ Kirsty deemed, accurately again, that my ‘Risk to others was LOW. It was only by chance and an unusual set of circumstance that I never carried out my suicide plan in the middle of March. I was happy to inform everyone that wanted to listen of my suicide plans. I even laid out my plans to Laura Jones when she assessed my mental health on 26th April 2022. I made a credible attempt on my own life the following day and was detained by Dorset Police under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. …***…

28)   ‘Why was I originally referred to iTalk but later denied access to that service?’  It should have been obvious to everyone at the Bridge Centre that referral to iTalk was almost certain to be turned down because of my risk to myself. …***…I had the opportunity to talk with others who attended the ‘Emotional Coping Skills’ course at the Wellbeing Centre as well as the course leader, Vikki, herself and the general consensus was that courses run by the Wellbeing Centre ARE NOT APPROPRIATE for suffers of c-ptsd unless they are a part of a more holistic approach that included psychotherapy. Other sufferers of c-ptsd on the course believe they are being allowed to ‘fall through the cracks’ of a healthcare system unfit for purpose.

29)   ‘If iTalk are a recognised healthcare provider offering CBT for mental health issues including ptsd then why are they so nervous around patients expressing suicidal ideation?’  People with a diagnosis of ptsd are at higher risk of suicide and yet iTalk catagorically state that they are not equipped to support patients at risk to their own safety, or that of others. That sounds like an unreasonable threshold to me.

30)   ‘Who at the Wellbeing Centre is trained to deal with ptsd, complex ptsd and suicidal ideation?’ The answer is that nobody at the Wellbeing Centre is trained to deal with those suffering from ptsd or complex ptsd. They are not allowed to offer the appropriate treatments for either condition ie counselling or psychodynamic therapies. Safe Haven operates under the same roof as the Wellbeing Centre and offers immediate support from 6pm to 10pm daily for those in crisis. I had already been accessing the Safe Haven and continue to access the Safe Haven. My referral to the Wellbeing Centre following my second mental health assessment on 26th April is wholly inappropriate.

31)   ‘Why does the latest assessment with Laura Jones recommend if self refer to iTalk?’  During my mental health assessment with Laura Jones on the 26th April I openly talked  about my imminent plan to take my own life ( in fact I set out early the very next morning and made a credible attempt on my own life ). …***…

PART TWO to be continued in A Murder of Conspirators # 18