LATEST ISSUES 6th August, 2026

Mark Stock
Aug 6
102 min read

Updated: Aug 8

This is probably the longest post to my blog.

I have just been prompted to complete contact forms in order to raise concerns with the Prime Minister about the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.

Wix advises this post is a 102 minute read and I don't expect the casual reader will read the entirety of the entry. The document, 'APPEAL FOR THE LEGISLATIVE REFORM OF THE PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN', published below is, ostensibly, for the eyes of the Prime Minister and his office. It covers some of the material I submitted to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman up to April, 2025, making serious and substantive complaints against CAHMS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the wider Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. Complaints against Hampshire & IOW Healthcare Foundation Trust are separate and have NOT been escalated to the PHSO. These complaints will be published here at my blog, in new posts under the heading 'Just Caws', later this year.

This appeal will be a significant test of Parliamentary process and to the supreme legislative body of this country, made on behalf of thousands of damaged and disenfranchised NHS users.

To The Right Honourable ANDY BURNHAM MP

'Dear Prime Minister

I have just forwarded a lengthy and detailed document to members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee titled 'APPEAL FOR THE LEGISLATIVE REFORM OF THE PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN'

This document meticulously presents multiple examples of appalling clinical incompetence, clinical neglect, psychological abuse, systemic procedural failures, casual disregard for the NHS Constitution and NICE guidelines as well as dishonesty, lies and corruption.

For the sake of brevity, this document only collects extracts from a series of more complete and comprehensive documents collated over three years as a result of my own investigations. It provides the essence of my grievances which I first began submitting to the PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN in 2022.

Regardless of its editorial patchwork nature, this document sets out extensive details of multiple examples of appalling clinical incompetence, clinical neglect, psychological abuse, systemic procedural failures, casual disregard for the NHS Constitution and NICE guidelines as well as dishonesty, lies and corruption, much of which is published here for the first time. This document accounts for grievances against ONE NHS Trust. Similar grievances against a SECOND NHS Trust remain, for now, unaddressed.

The PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN has stubbornly refused to investigate the FULL SCOPE of my complaints and closed my case in 2025 without resolution.

I understand that it is for the government to initiate legislative reform of the PHSO. I hope that you find time to read my story, which I know to be replicated across the country through thousands and thousands of lives damaged and discarded by a cynical and unsympathetic process.

The PHSO is where complaints go to die.

I desperately implore you to act.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Stock

The document, 'APPEAL FOR THE LEGISLATIVE REFORM OF THE PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN', was first sent to the members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and begins with the following introduction.

'APPEAL FOR THE LEGISLATIVE REFORM OF THE PARLIAMENTARY HEALTH SERVICE OMBUDSMAN

‘Barely 2% of all complaints receive a full investigation and in 2025/26 just 1.1% received any form of uphold (this data includes partial upholds).’ -

‘Record-breaking year for PHSO By Della Reynolds on July 27, 2026

THE PHSO IS WHERE COMPLAINTS GO TO DIE.

I am asking for the members of the committee to bring renewed pressure to bear upon the current government to raise this issue in Parliament ahead of a serious and radical overhaul of the PHSO.

I will, in time, be copying ALL current government MPs in on this document.

Dear members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee,

I am writing to you out of serious concern at the long-standing inability of the Parliamentary Health Ombudsman Service to competently fulfil the role of investigating complaints about UK government departments, other public organisations and the NHS in England. This letter implores the PACAC to bring the full weight of its authority to bear upon Parliament and call for immediate, radical legislative reform of the PHSO.

I am absolutely aware the committee does not look at individual cases or specific complaints. I am NOT asking any of the committee to intervene nor act on my behalf. I AM forwarding a very real human story that I believe typifies THOUSANDS OF damaged and disenfranchised service users. My story, outlined in detail below, meticulously presents multiple examples of appalling clinical incompetence, clinical neglect, psychological abuse, systemic procedural failures, casual disregard for the NHS Constitution and NICE guidelines as well as dishonesty, lies and corruption. The story below focuses on ONE NHS Trust. The PHSO has, by dint of refusal to uphold the FULL SCOPE of my complaint, effectively condoned wrongdoing on a criminal scale. Similar clinical neglect, procedural failures and abuses have been replicated by a SECOND NHS Trust and I have protested inaction and injustice by way of THREE HUNGER STRIKES and was cynically and inappropriately referred by a healthcare manager, using false information, to the government’s counter-terrorism initiative, PREVENT after peacefully protesting outside Parliament and Downing Street last year. The full story of my journey through mental healthcare in Basingstoke is journalled in my blog at www.fourandtwentydeadcrows.com.

I write to you as a single father and advocate to a mentally ill daughter. We have both been appalling underserved, clinically neglected and abused by two NHS Foundation Trusts providing mental health service to the local Basingstoke area. During my attempts to hold individuals and institutions to account I uncovered real evidence of gross systemic failures by both Trusts alongside the cynical use of ‘lawfare’ and blatant corruption by clinicians and leadership.

My complaint about the first Trust, the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, was investigated by their Patient Advisory Liaison Service. That investigation was incompetently handled and the findings, made in writing to me in 2022, were risible. I immediately escalated my complaint to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.

It took the PHSO over TWENTY-EIGHT MONTHS to appoint caseworker Thomas Body to my complaint and over THIRTY-TWO MONTHS between my initial complaint being received by the PHSO and senior caseworker, Thomas Body’s decision not to investigate the FULL SCOPE OF my complaint.

I compiled a detailed ‘feedback’ document and forwarded this to the PHSO on the 28^th April, 2025 in accordance with the invitation embedded within their own policy. The PHSO ignored my ‘feedback document until my local MP intervened a year later.

My original complaint about the second Trust, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust ( now Hampshire & IOW Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust ) was investigated internally and concluded, more or less, to my satisfaction.

I have made further complaints about Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust and had those complaints investigated internally and concluded, though less satisfactorily. My most recent complaint about Hampshire & IOW Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust ( formally Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust ) was originally dismissed by new management. That particular complaint was finally investigated and closed without resolution. I was advised to escalate this complaint to the PHSO but I declined as I no longer have confidence in the Ombudsman.

The understanding that the PHSO will, invariably, refuse to uphold complaints is shared among Patient Advisory Liaison Service investigators and Trust CEO when they sign off on completed investigations. It is baked into the entire complaints system.

The PHSO is where complaints go to die.

And that understanding permeates the culture, eroding standards, corrupting ethics and contributing to the slow wretched decline of the NHS. Clinicians grow lazy, take liberties and shortcuts around policy and procedures, causing real harm.

I have copied and pasted TWO accounts below that make for compelling reading.

The first is the

PHSO INVESTIGATION INTO MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

including a List of Grievances. This first account is based on a lengthy and detailed document sent to the PHSO on 17^th January, 2025. I have updated it today based on current knowledge.

The second is taken from an article titled

‘Record-breaking year for the PHSO’,

written by advocate and activist, Della Reynolds in response to the first ‘annual report’ written by new PHSO appointee, Paula Sussex, on the 14^th July this year. https://phsothetruestory.com/2026/07/27/record-breaking-year-for-phso/.

Della’s article is rightly critical of Paula Sussex and the wider PHSO. The facts and figures published in their ‘annual report’ are shocking, particularly the data relating to upholds of complaints

‘Barely 2% of all complaints receive a full investigation and in 2025/26 just 1.1% received any form of uphold (this data includes partial upholds).’

I would recommend reading Della’s blog.

Della has also published a book titled ‘What’s the point of the Ombudsman?’ I have a copy on my bookshelf. It runs to 579 pages of damning testimony garnered from multiple damaged and disenfranchised NHS users.

The Parliamentary Health Ombudsman Service is currently unfit for purpose. In Della Reynold’s words, the PHSO is ‘corrupt by design’.

The following paragraphs are extracts from my ‘feedback’ forwarded to the PHSO in April, 2025. ‘Invitation’ to complainants to provide ‘feedback’ is embedded in published PHSO policy and yet the PHSO ignored my ‘feedback’ for over a year until my local MP intervened.

First Account

PHSO INVESTIGATION INTO MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

‘The home page of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman website opens with the following statement

‘We independently investigate complaints about UK government departments, other public organisations and the NHS in England. We believe complaints have the power to reveal the truth, create lasting change and inspire a better relationship between people and public services. Our service is free, fair and open to everyone.’

This statement is a definite declaration of intent and clear expression of belief, first to INVESTIGATE complaints and second, that there is an undeniable ACCEPTENCE of basic values including TRUST, faith and CONFIDENCE in public services. Beliefs are convictions that we generally accept to be true. If the first moral duty of the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman is to reveal what is true than surely the prime imperative is INVESTIGATION.

Complaints should, out of basic necessity, resolve personal grievances and transform those grievances into improvements and recovery.

If complaints are not properly investigated then there can only be an undermining of the relationship between the people and the public services, leading to cynicism and a deterioration of confidence and an erosion of trust.

The Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman is as much a public service as the institutions that it is charged with investigating.

‘The Ombudsman possesses wide powers of investigation and is able to determine the procedure for the investigation and to obtain information from such people as required. In respect of the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses, the Ombudsman has the same authority as the High Court. Defiance of these powers can be treated as contempt of court.’

The Ombudsman should take full advantage of the wide powers at its disposal and investigate complaints with conviction, robustness and forensic integrity.

Truth is more important than the trouble it takes to get it.

If the Ombudsman fails to take full advantage of the wide powers at its disposal then it becomes a weak and ineffectual body, legally toothless and constitutionally impotent. Any failing public service can factor in this weakness and exploit the perceived impotence.

I am convinced that this is exactly what happened to my complaint made to the Patient Advisory Liaison investigator who acted on behalf of the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. My compliant was given deliberate short shrift in the hope that it might be iniquitously consigned to a swift oblivion. And if I protested and escalated my complaint to the Ombudsman? What then? The Ombudsman might make some recommendations but the Ombudsman does not possess the power to compel a public authority to adhere to its findings. Any individual culpable of wrongdoing can effectively hide behind the institution walls. The Trust itself is at liberty to ignore the Ombudsman or make token gestures of compliance and contrition.

Again, the home page of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman website opens with the following statement

The two component parts of the PHSO statement are 1) investigation and 2) belief

1) INVESTIGATION

‘We independently investigate complaints about UK government departments, other public organisations and the NHS in England.’

The following statement has been culled from the Wikipedia page

So, the first question I would like Thomas Body and the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman to answer should be

‘Is the statement ‘The Ombudsman possesses wide powers of investigation and is able to determine the procedure for the investigation and to obtain information from such people as required. In respect of the gathering of evidence and the examination of witnesses, the Ombudsman has the same authority as the High Court. Defiance of these powers can be treated as contempt of court,’ TRUE?

And, if the answer to that question is ‘YES’ then why are you and the PHSO refusing to posit the 73 specific questions that I wanted the Trust to answer as part of my desired outcome?

You, Thomas Body, on behalf of the PHSO, have the same authority as the High Court. If you posit my 73 questions and the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust refuses to answer my 73 questions then that refusal can be treated as contempt of court.

I put it to you that your refusal to posit my 73 questions is political.

I put it to you that your refusal to posit my 73 questions is tantamount to a special dispensation being afforded to the Trust. I would go further and suggest that this special dispensation is TYPICAL of the privileges and provisions afforded to the Trust and other organisations apparently ‘investigated’ by the PHSO.

If the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman purposely chooses not to posit my 73 questions to the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust then I will continue to find the Ombudsman at fault.

2) BELIEF

‘We believe complaints have the power to reveal the truth, create lasting change and inspire a better relationship between people and public services.’

I would suggest that complaints only have the power to reveal the truth if they are properly investigated. Complaints can only lead to lasting change or restoration and improvement of services if and when the truth has been revealed.

A better relationship between people and public services is unobtainable if the Ombudsman fails to properly investigate complaints. If it is the perception of the people that the Ombudsman purposely chooses NOT to exercise the wide powers at its disposal or its ‘High Court’ authority in gathering evidence and examining witnesses then the people will have no confidence in those public services. Indeed, those same people will also have no confidence in the Ombudsman.

Failure by the Ombudsman to properly investigate complaint leads, inevitably, to a culture of pessimism.

Cultural pessimism arises with the conviction that the culture of a nation, a civilization, or humanity itself is in a process of irreversible decline.

Similarly, when a Trust understands that the Ombudsman is unwilling to exercise the wide powers at its disposal or its ‘High Court’ authority in gathering evidence and examining witnesses, that Trust becomes subject to cultural pessimism and can be corrupted or is corruptible.

I have supplied evidence to the Ombudsman that such cultural pessimism existed within the Trust. ( ref CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke and the influence of pessimism in decisions not to refer my daughter to Adult Services admitted to following investigations carried out by the Association of Child Psychotherapists ).

I have supplied evidence to the Ombudsman that the Trust has become corruptible. ( ref the same CAMHS, Bramblys Drive clinicians and wider Trust leadership who I was complaining about had authority over the redaction and or exemption decisions regarding my Access to Records requests and obstructed my access to evidence that likely incriminated those same CAMHS, Bramblys Drive clinicians and wider Trust leadership ).

I would argue that the Ombudsman role is similar to that of regulatory bodies including the Health and Care Professions Council, that being to protect the public.

One paper defines patient safety regulation as “the processes engaged in by institutional actors that seek to shape, monitor, control or modify activities within healthcare organizations in order to reduce the risk of patients being harmed during their care.”

The complaints process is an important entity in healthcare and healthcare insurance.

The complaints process plays a crucial role in maintaining public trust

The Association of Ombudsman states

‘The Vision of the Association is that throughout the public and private sectors:

· It is straightforward and simple for people to complain.

· People making a complaint are listened to and treated fairly.

· A complaint is dealt with quickly, fairly and effectively at the earliest stage by suitably trained staff.

· People have access to an ombudsman in all areas of consumer and public services.

· The learning from a complaint is used to improve services.

The Objectives of the Association are to:

· Support and promote an effective system of complaint handling and redress in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Britain’s Crown Dependencies and Britain’s Overseas Territories.

· Encourage, develop and protect the role of an ombudsman in both the public and private sectors as the ‘best practice’ model for resolving complaints, according recognition through membership.

· Provide an authoritative voice and promote best practice and policy for those involved in complaint handling and redress to ensure an effective service for the public.

· Support open and transparent accountability and endorse principles of good complaint handling.’

THE PHSO INVESTIGATION INTO MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

I could not agree to the PHSO complaint summary because it did not accurately represent my complaint. I respectfully asked that the PHSO revise the complaint summary and return to me with an improved commitment to the FULL SCOPE of my complaint against the Trust. The PHSO steadfastly refused to investigate the FULL SCOPE of my complaint.

I remain convinced that the PHSO utterly failed to grasp the enormity of the damage done to my daughter and especially to myself including

Long-term to life-long psychological damage.

Life-long reputational damage.

While the PHSO confirmed they would investigate the clinical negligence part of my complaint ie the inappropriate and unsanctioned invasive psychological intervention they refused to investigate the following parts of my complaint.

Proceeding with psychotherapy without informed consent

Failure to observe and follow policy and protocol

Culture of pessimism

Deceit, dishonesty and misrepresentation

Corruption

I believe the issues dismissed by the PHSO continue to present a serious risk to patients at CAMHS, namely CHILDREN and ADOLESCENTS.

The following document made a summary of all my grievances against the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust forwarded to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.

LIST OF GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

Prepared at the request of PHSO caseworker, Thomas Brody on the 17^th January, 2025

The actual list starts on page 1 below

Subsets of complaints start at page 5 ,10 and 24 below

The consequences of the failures by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, experienced by Meg Stock and me, Mark Stock, her single dad and carer starts on page 51 below

Finally, this document is my attempt to condense my complaint into something approaching ‘bullet points’. It should go without saying that I have comprehensive files of evidence in the form of documents, email and medical records to support all of my complaints. Ask for whatever you need and I will supply asap.

LIST and INITIAL QUESTIONS ( I was later asked by Thomas Body to provide the PHSO with any questions that I wanted to ask the Trust or that the Trust had not already answered. I eventually posited 73 questions but Thomas Body refused to present even ONE of my questions to the Trust. Some questions are included here ).

1) My daughter’s admission to CAMHS 2021. She had to wait until Feb 5^th 2021 over 2 years and 2 months after initial assessment. My daughter was seen only when her case became an emergency and she was almost psychotic. The explanation for the unreasonable delay is, so far, risible.

2) Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck between them failed to transition my daughter from CAMHS to Adult Services at age 17.5 years in accordance with policy. Mark Birbeck explained that, in his opinion, ‘adult services were patchy’ and so made the executive decision not to refer my daughter to AS, in clear violation of the NHS Constitution. See my complaint to the Association of Child Psychotherapists

3) Sally Mungall worked outside her remit and delivered invasive and damaging psychotherapy.

4) Evidence suggests that Sally Mungall was negatively influenced by her own ‘counter-transference’.

5) Sally Mungall failed to maintain adequate boundaries

6) Sally Mungall abused me during therapy

7) Sally Mungall misrepresented me, lied to me and lied about me in conversation and writing with colleagues in CRISIS and CMHT, The Bridge Centre AND Hampshire Constabulary.

8) Sally Mungall filed false reports against with Hampshire Constabulary accusing me, without evidence, of stalking.

9) Sally Mungall failed to respond to me in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council’s code of ethics and standards.

10) Sally Mungall along with other clinical cohorts and CAMHS leadership was involved in covert plans to misrepresent me, monitor me, pathologise me and influence the criminalisation of meetc.

11) Sally Mungall knowingly allowed colleagues in CMHT, The Bridge Centre to wrongly reassess their ‘risk’ assessment of me from ‘low risk to others’ to moderate risk to others’, insinuating that I was a risk to healthcare professionals without evidence.

12) Where is the explanation for the lies to me around cancellation of meeting with SM on the 3^rd Feb 2022?

13) Where is the explanation for withholding records etc missing clinical notes, missing minutes of operational meetings?

14) Is supervision of therapists working at CAMHS adequate?

15) What was the utility of the ‘art therapy’ provided by Sally Mungall?

16) What are the formal policies and safeguarding around parent work?

17) Why was there no art therapy drawings assessment or further closure.

18) Why was I not invited to any of the Safeguarding meetings or any of the professional meetings to represent myself , defend myself against grossly false accusations or be given the opportunity to a right to reply?

19) Andy Ashby of PALS failed to properly investigate my complaint rev 30/7 ref SP22020

1) Sally was NOT experienced in dealing with transference within the therapeutic relationship. She was unable to contain the intensely powerful feelings generated by what has later been established as inappropriate therapy. I have spoken with more experienced therapists since my ‘parent work’ with Sally and they have all, unequivocally shared their incredulity with me at the ill-advised attempt by Sally to carry out deep psychotherapy that uncovered intergenerational trauma within just a few short months. Indeed, my assessor at Basingstoke Counselling Services was heavily critical of that attempt. My current therapist at BCS believes that it will take us many years to deal with the trauma of my childhood abuse and neglect. Likewise, the supervisory structure available to Sally FAILED completely to recognise that she was delivering inappropriate therapy.

2) The ‘psychotherapy’’ offered NO utility in the therapy that was simultaneously being carried out between my daughter, Meg and her therapist, Mark Birbeck. I made slight modifications to my parenting style as ‘art therapy’ progressed but the insight gained by Sally into my own intergenerational trauma made little to no difference to Mark’s therapeutic approach to Meg.

3) Sally’s letter to me dated 30^th December 2021 made no attempt to review the hideous drawings that I made during ‘art therapy’. The meeting that we had arranged together for the 3^rd Feb 2022 was specifically set aside for that very purpose. I was handed my ‘art therapy’ drawings by a complete stranger. I opened the package of ‘art therapy’ drawings during my walk back from CAMHS to me home. The ‘art therapy’ drawings were carelessly folded in an envelope. There was no assessment or clinical analysis of my work. I felt so disturbed and abandoned that I literally threw up on the street pavement. It still makes me feel sick to remember when those drawings were handed back to me with insensitivity and indifference. Disgusting.

4) –

5) –

6) The decision made by the Operational Manager, Professional lead and Clinical lead was based on incomplete information. The same goes for the other meetings that were held at around the same time and which were likely attended by Julie Yalden, Sarie Hodgson, Wanda Reynolds, Sally Mungall, Mark Birbeck, Dora Gouveia-Schofield, Amanda Parke, Emma Drake and Dr Natalie Roberts. None of the above, with the exception of Sally Mungall, were aware of the true nature of the therapy that had been delivered throughout my ‘parent work’. I was grossly misrepresented because the above attendees based their decisions on incomplete information. That misrepresentation characterised me as a RISK to staff at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, particularly Sally Mungall. That misrepresentation led to further embellishment in subsequent communication with staff at CMHT, The Bridge Centre. My character was eventually maligned as a ‘fixated’, ‘obsessed’ ‘stalker’ who needed monitoring, emotionally manipulating and reporting to the police. I was even considered a RISK to my own daughter. Further misquoting, misinterpreting and imaginative embellishment and outright false information found its way into my medical records at CMHT, The Bridge Centre. All of this can be traced back to the initial ‘extensive meetings of senior staff and clinical leads’ at Camhs, Bramblys Drive throughout January and the first part of February 2022. SENIOR STAFF AND CLINICAL LEADS FAILED TO MAKE A THOROUGH FORENSIC INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINE THE CLINICAL NOTES MADE BY SALLY THROUGHOUT THE SO-CALLED ‘PARENT WORK’.

7) –

8) –

9) It isn’t just the lack of communication that grieves me. It’s the clear deception that was being orchestrated. Sally Mungall was informing attendees at the ‘Professionals meeting’ at CMHT, The Bridge Centre on the 9^th Feb 2022 that the scheduled appointment with me of the 3^rd Feb 2022 had being permanently cancelled and that ‘dad was unaware that this was not going to be rescheduled as promised’. Sally Mungall actually lied to me at the end of the final review on 13^th January when I said to her, ‘See you on the 3^rd of February for our meeting’. She hesitated before saying ‘yes’ when she secretly knew that the meeting was already going to be cancelled. The lady from CAMHS reception who phoned me on the 2^nd Feb to tell me that ‘sally had to cancel ALL her appointments for that week including mine’ ALSO lied. She lied again when she said ‘yes’ after I asked her to call back the following week to reschedule the appointment. Nobody attempted to contact me for the almost 6 weeks that I waited politely and patiently. Everyone at CAMHS was in on the deception.

10) Again, as explained above, I was being treated by way of intense psychotherapy and that made a ‘patient’ out of me. My case was a part of my daughters case, at the very least and Meg was still being seen by Mark Birbeck until 28^th January. My meeting with Sally Mungall could easily have been rescheduled at a time and date before the 28^th January.

11) All decisions were based on incomplete information and definitely NOT with MY best intentions in mind. I was being misrepresented and considered a problem that needed reporting to the police.

12) Meg gave her consent for me to see her medical records at the point at which I originally submitted my access to request records back week during commencing April 25^th 2022. NO EXCUSE.

13) –

14) –

15) –

16) –

17) -

18) Disclosure of medical records from Meg’s records was originally requested 18 weeks ago!

a) The decision to deny me an opportunity to face those ‘leadership staff and clinical leads’ or, indeed ALL those mentioned in Part One number 6 above is COWARDLY. I was grotesquely misrepresented by that collective group and they have not been held accountable for the psychological damage done to me. Restorative justice would allow me the opportunity to be seen as a human being and for them to acknowledge my humiliation, distress and very real pain.

b) You have not identified any evidence of CAMHS intentionally lying to me, acting in a deceptive manner or trying to manipulate me because you don’t want to identify it. I have taken much time and trouble to bring evidence to bear within the pages of my complaint document. That evidence is sourced directly from the medical records that were disclosed to me by CMHT, The Bridge Centre. It’s all there in black and white. I have copies that I can provide to you or the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.

c)I AM OUTRAGED BY YOUR ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO CONTACT THE POLICE AS A RESULT OF THE SAFEGUARDING MEETING. The attendees of those meetings and the subsequent ‘professionals meeting’ held at the Bridge Centre on the 9^th February 2022 were wholly wrong to frame me as a risk to anyone but myself. They endeavoured to make a criminal out of me as did staff at CMHT, The Bridge Centre throughout January and February 2022. The true extent of contact with police is still shrouded in secrecy. ALL allegations made against me were unjust and without foundation. I WILL NOT REST UNTIL JUSTICE IS SERVED ON THIS POINT. I WILL HAVE FULL, UNREDACTED DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS OF ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY CAHMS STAFF TO COMMUNICATE TO THE POLICE AND SO MISREPRESENT ME AS ‘FIXATED’, ‘OBSESSED’, OR AS A ‘STALKER’ AND TO MAKE AMENDS BY RECINDING ANY ACCUSATIONS IN WRITING TO THE POLICE. THIS IS A CROSS THAT I AM FULLY PREPARED TO DIE ON.

d) The decision to deny me an opportunity to face those ‘leadership staff and clinical leads’ or, indeed ALL those mentioned in Part One number 6 above is COWARDLY. I was grotesquely misrepresented by that collective group and they have not been held accountable for the psychological damage done to me. Restorative justice would allow me the opportunity to be seen as a human being and for them to acknowledge my humiliation, distress and very real pain.

e) You have not identified any evidence of CAMHS intentionally lying to me, acting in a deceptive manner or trying to manipulate me because you don’t want to identify it. I have taken much time and trouble to bring evidence to bear within the pages of my complaint document. That evidence is sourced directly from the medical records that were disclosed to me by CMHT, The Bridge Centre. It’s all there in black and white. I have copies that I can provide to you or the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.

f) I AM OUTRAGED BY YOUR ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO CONTACT THE POLICE AS A RESULT OF THE SAFEGUARDING MEETING. The attendees of those meetings and the subsequent ‘professionals meeting’ held at the Bridge Centre on the 9^th February 2022 were wholly wrong to frame me as a risk to anyone but myself. They endeavoured to make a criminal out of me as did staff at CMHT, The Bridge Centre throughout January and February 2022. The true extent of contact with police is still shrouded in secrecy. ALL allegations made against me were unjust and without foundation. I WILL NOT REST UNTIL JUSTICE IS SERVED ON THIS POINT. I WILL HAVE FULL, UNREDACTED DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS OF ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY CAHMS STAFF TO COMMUNICATE TO THE POLICE AND SO MISREPRESENT ME AS ‘FIXATED’, ‘OBSESSED’, OR AS A ‘STALKER’ AND TO MAKE AMENDS BY RECINDING ANY ACCUSATIONS IN WRITING TO THE POLICE. THIS IS A CROSS THAT I AM FULLY PREPARED TO DIE ON.

g) Katie Rees at Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership initially told me that the ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion’ would be withheld from me. It was only through Katie Rees’s kind cooperation that I was made aware that there had been a potential THREE meetings held at Camhs, Bramblys Drive to discuss ME.

20) Wanda Reynolds 1-17 specific complaints about dishonesty, obfuscation and lies ref Social Work England complaint 4^th May 2023 a)misrepresenting me as ‘obsessional’ b)managerial malpractice 3) see PAGE 24 below for 1-17 specific complaints

21) Records; Why was I not invited to participate in ‘internal safeguarding adults’ 1365700 meeting? Why can I not have access to the record to check for the veracity of information contained?

22) Records; The withholding of further records as of 5^th Oct 2022 as notified by Information Governance Sussex Partnership. Whose decision was it to wdeny me access to records? Katie Rees cited ‘group’ decision. The same individuals within this ‘group’ are the same individuals that are responsible for misrepresenting me and lying to me or about me to CRISIS, CMHT, The Bridge Centre and Hampshire Constabulary. They are covering their tracks and or hiding evidence. This surely amounts to corruption?

23) Records; Where are the minutes of meetings between CAMHS clinicians and leadership during Jan to Feb 2022 discussing me?

24) Records; Where are the minutes of meetings between Wanda Reynolds and Dr Natalie Reynolds up to May 20^th 2022 discussing me?

25) MISREPRESENTATION that involved police during FEB 2022 and then again during September 2022 Wanda Reynolds ‘reframing’ of my letter sent to Sally Mungall and failing to report the substantive part of it ie asking Sally Mungall to explain what had gone wrong in art therapy, in accordance with her regulatory body, the HCPC code of ethics and standards.

Andy Ashby MY REACTION TO YOUR RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT DATED 30^TH JULY 2022 ( REF SP22020 ) AND MY CONCLUSIONS BEFORE FORWARDING TO PHSO

MY CONTENDED ‘PATIENT’ STATUS

Your response to my complaint starts with your contention that I was not a ‘patient’ at CAMHS and that no medical file was opened for me at SPFT. Your contention goes further by stating that all documentation, where necessary, was entered onto my daughter, Meg’s medical record. This is your contention in response to my repeatedly thwarted efforts to access details of at least three, potentially more, meetings held by senior management and clinical leads at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive sometime between the end of December 2021 and 1^st February 2022. I robustly dispute your contention, especially when used to deny me access to details of those meetings. I was made a ‘patient’ as soon as Sally Mungall cajoled me into engaging in ‘art therapy’, intense and traumatic psychotherapy. There was NO CONTEXT with reference to ‘parent work’. THE SALIENT POINT HERE BEING THAT SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND CLINICAL LEADS WOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS HAD A PROPER FORENSIC INVESTIGATION BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE TIME OF THOSE MEETINGS.

This is the FIRST FAILURE by senior management and clinical leads. Nobody thought to retrieve the ‘clinical notes’ made by Sally throughout the so called ‘parent work’ sessions. Scrutiny of those ‘clinical notes’ would have demonstrated that the therapy that was inappropriate and the outcome of those meetings would have been completely different. Nobody accessed those ‘clinical notes’ until Wanda Reynolds printed them off and read them for herself just prior to my meeting with her and Vicky Long at the Bridge Centre on 20^th May 2022. Wanda’s actual words to me at that meeting, having been informed by those ‘clinical notes’, was that ‘We ( CAMHS ) have damaged you’. I have read in your response that Wanda no longer has recollection of uttering those words but Vicky Long was prompted by Wanda to also add that my ‘mental health assessments carried out at the Bridge Centre would need to be reassessed.’ ( I have since written to Vicky for further comments but she is unavailable until the 12^th Sept due to annual leave and or illness ).

Instead, uninformed decisions were made that denied me a promised final meeting with Sally Mungall on the 3^rd Feb 2022 and, more egregiously, misrepresented me as a risk to staff, and particularly Sally Mungall, at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive, a risk to my daughter Meg and worse. That misrepresentation escalated into regarding me as a ‘fixated’, ‘obsessed’ ‘stalker’ that needed monitoring and manipulating and, eventually a ‘concern that needed reporting to the police’!

At least one of those meetings was a Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion held on 1^st Feb 2022. That discussion identified ME as the subject. I was given the reference number SUBJECT: RE; 1****** MARK STOCK DAD OF MEG. Sussex Safeguarding Adults Policy And Procedures edition 4 May 2019 states the following;

Section 1.1.2 Promote wellbeing states ‘Professionals should work with each adult to establish what being safe means to them and how that can be best achieved.’

Section 1.1.4 Key principles informing this policy states ‘Empowerment: Description; Presumption of person led decisions and informed consent. Outcome for the adult at risk; ‘’I am asked what I want as the outcomes from the safeguarding process and these directly inform what happens.’’ In practice this means; Having clear and accessible systems for adults’ views to be heard and influence and change. Giving people relevant information and support about safeguarding and the choices available to ensure their own safety.

CAMHS, BRAMBLYS DRIVE ACTED IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE SECTIONS OF POLICY AND PROCEDURE. This is the SECOND FAILURE by senior management and clinical leads.

If I had been involved in the Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion which clearly identified ME as the subject then I would likely have steered the discussion along the correct line of investigation and the inappropriateness of the therapy carried out during ‘parent work’ would have been revealed to all attendees of that meeting.

So, why were minutes not taken at the time of the three, possibly more, meetings. You cite ‘operational’ as an excuse to absolve CAMHS, Bramblys Drive of the responsibility to make minutes and to keep records. In what way exactly is a Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion which clearly identifies ME as the subject ‘operational’? Decisions made as a result of that meeting, and the other at least two meetings, led to clinical outcomes that had profoundly negative consequences for me, both at CAMHS and then later at the Bridge Centre. Those decisions have psychologically damaged me, the effect of which is leading me to suicide.

The introduction to the NHS CONSTITUTION says ‘ It ( the NHS ) is there to improve our health and wellbeing, supporting us to keep mentally and physically well, to get better when we are ill and, when we cannot fully recover, to stay as well as we can to the end of our lives.’ CAMHS, Bramblys Drive failed me in that most fundamental of undertakings and worse. They undermined my health and wellbeing and further impoverished my mental welfare. YOU WANT TO MAKE ME LESS THAN A PATIENT but I am a patient regardless. You acknowledge that the ‘parent work’ transitioned to having therapeutic impact but go on to suggest such work was ‘not delivered as an intervention following assessment and or diagnosis’. If you attend your GP surgery suffering symptoms of an as yet undetermined illness are you a ‘patient’ before or after an examination? Are you less than a ‘patient’ before an assessment or diagnosis? It’s a rhetorical question. At the point that the ‘parent work’ transitioned to having a therapeutic impact I became a ‘patient’ because the therapeutic impact had a negative clinical affect on me. That negative clinical affect has completely overwhelmed my life for the better part of a year. I currently barely function as a human being.

You can argue over the technicalities of if I am or am not a ‘patient’ ad nauseam. Minutes should have been taken at all three, or more, of those meetings held at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive and at least entered into Meg’s medical records. This very complaint categorically proves the necessity to take minutes and enter them into the record. ANY MEETING THAT IDENTIFIES AN INDIVIDUAL PATIENT BY NAME OR, BY EXTENSION, A PARENT, GUARDIAN OR OTHER MAIN CARER OF THAT NAMED PATIENT SHOULD BE MINUTED AND RECORDS ENTERED INTO THE PATIENT’S RECORD. This should be mandatory, especially when such meetings have a clinical outcome that directly affects either the patient or, by extension, the parent, guardian or other main carer. The decisions made by the attendees of those meetings at CAMHS, Bramblys Drive ultimately affected Meg. The trauma that I have endured as a result of inappropriate therapy and the decisions made by senior management and clinical leads was felt also by Meg. She witnessed her father’s profound distress in often mute horror. It was hard to explain to her why I was so distraught, hard to disguise the physical signs ie throwing up and having panic attacks. It was hard for her to contend with a dad who had shown remarkable resilience and resource in the face of overwhelming adversity and duress for so many years to finally succumb to debilitating depression. She was scared witless when police came knocking at our front door the day I went missing with intention to take me own life back in April 2022.

Following my complaint about my daughter’s CAMHS therapist, Mark Birbeck, made to the Association of Child Psychotherapists and after reading their Investigation report

1) ACCORDING TO NHS DIGITAL, THE IMPACT OF COVID 19 DID NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON NHS SERVICES UNTIL APRIL 2020 ( https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-outpatient-activity/2020-21/covid-19-impact ) My daughter was initially assessed by Abigail Lee, Primary Mental Health Worker at CAMHS on the 13^th December 2018. The failure to admit my daughter into the service was largely outside of the influence of Covid 19.

MS ( Meg Stock ) was considered to be a complex case, under the clinical pathway for Trauma, with symptoms of depression and anxiety/ Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). During her psychotherapy treatment MS was given a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Concurrent work with Mr. S was arranged alongside her psychotherapy treatment.Regarding the Health Trust Transition Care Protocol, MB explained that he was aware a policy was in place but acknowledged he may not have been aware of it in detail. When he joined the Trust he was placed on Induction training, but this was cancelled after two sessions due to COVID, when the Trust instructed that all non-essential activities should be stopped in order for clinical work to be prioritised. This meant that MB did not attend the planned Induction session on the Protocol. MB said that he had not previously been involved in operationalising a transition for a patient, and was not aware or made aware of a specific document that needed to be shared with the patient/ family. His understanding of transition was as a process of thinking together with a patient as to what might be needed in the future as their 18^th birthday approached.

2) HERE IS THE FIRST RECORDED ADMISSION THAT MARK BIRBECK WAS AWARE OF A TRANSITION POLICY. Elsewhere in this Investigation Report are further admissions by Mark Birbeck that he was aware that referral to Adult Services was an option. Surely a responsible clinician would have made immediate proactive steps to further their knowledge of transition protocol upon joining a new service. Mark Birbeck had already considered referral to Adult Mental Health Services at the beginning of his work with my daughter but is recorded later in this Investigation Report that he felt it was not clear whether referral on to Adult Services would be needed. This is evidence of poor clinical judgement by Mark Birbeck. Surely Mark Birbeck’s understanding of transition being only a process of thinking together with a patient as to what might be needed in the future as their 18^th birthday approached is wholly inadequate and not aligned with even the basic principles of referral to Adult Services?

In the case of MS, MB felt that at the beginning of their work it was not clear whether referralon to Adult Mental Health would be needed: whether the mental health component of MS’s difficulties could be concluded at CAMHS; or whether other services may be more appropriate.

3) IT WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO ME AS A FATHER AND MAIN CARER THAT THE MENTAL HEALTH COMPONENT OF MY DAUGHTER’S MENTAL HEALTH DIFFICULTIES COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED AT CAMHS. I made myself clear on this point on multiple occasions including during a meeting with Mark Birbeck immediately after my daughter was admitted into the service on the 5^th February 2021. It has already been established that Mark Birbeck was aware that a Transition policy was in place at CAMHS. He was then immediately appraised of my daughter’s mental health issues in detail by me, her father and main carer. Mark Birbeck made a clinical decision to override my concerns and I was left throughout the duration of my daughter’s time at CAMHS feeling voiceless, unheard and dismissed. This surely contravenes ⋅ Section 4.3 Patients’ autonomy and rights to be involved in decision making should be respected as far as their individual circumstances allow. as referred to at the beginning of this Investigation Report?

For example, when the ASD diagnosis was made there were discussions with MB’s Clinical Psychology colleague that it could be helpful to MS to be referred on to a specialist Autism service. As MS had been out of education for some time, MB was also considering whether it could benefit her to be offered a mentor. MB acknowledged that although MS’s OCD symptoms were pronounced at times in their work, there was forward movement.

4) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ‘FORWARD MOVEMENT’ WITH REGARDS TO MY DAUGHTER’S OCD SYMPTOMS. Did the ACP investigators ask for evidence by way Mark Birbeck’s Session notes or avail themselves of further evidence by way of clinical notes recorded outside of the therapy sessions. What did the ACP investigators deduce from those records and was there good reason to challenge and cross-examine the information available in those records? Following my reading of this Investigation Report I have advised my daughter to initiate an Access to Records disclosure through Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership. Disclosure is currently underway.

When she attended, she was open to discussion about what kind of support she might need in the future.MB noted that for a period of six months, MS’s attendance then became more patchy and sothe opportunities to discuss services after CAMHS became more limited.

5) MEG’S MOTIVATION WANED PRECISELY BECAUSE THEIR WAS NO ‘FORWARD MOVEMENT’. She became disillusioned with the therapy from around June/July 2021 and it was up to me to motivate her to regularly attend her sessions with Mark Birbeck. There was some utility in Mark Birbeck’s therapy regarding my daughter’s difficult relationship with her own mother. I am quoted in other sources as saying I believed he was responsible for good work in helping my daughter with her relationship with her mother but it was my daughter’s chronic and debilitating OCD that was causing immense psychological distress and therefore an immediate and pressing issue.

MB also noted that as work progressed Mr. S was making it clearer that he was finding it harder to cope with MS’s difficulties and the energies of the CAMHS team were directed to ensuring appropriate referrals were made for him.

6) THIS IS CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. When my daughter was admitted into the service on the 5^th February 2021 I was already overwhelmed as a single parent and main carer. My mental health DID NOT deteriorate throughout almost the entirety of my daughter’s time at CAMHS. My mental health DID start to deteriorate during the final weeks of the ‘parent work’ with CAMHS art therapist, Sally Mungall. This deterioration was largely down to the inappropriateness of the psychotherapy that Sally Mungall utilised during ‘parent work’. The Sussex Partnership have already admitted that Sally Mungall acted outside of her remit and competency and she is currently being investigated by her own regulatory body on multiple points of contention, further details of which are beyond the scope of this Investigation Report. No referrals were actually made for me until 13^th January 2023 following my daughter’s ‘final review’ attended by my daughter, me, Mark Birbeck and Sally Mungall. I had become suicidal over the Christmas of 2021 and approached my GP practice on 29th December 2021. Sally Mungall had a telephone conversation with my GP on the 13^th January 2022. A ‘Professionals meeting’ was requested by Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck by letter on the 1^st February 2022 and convened on the 8^th February 2022. The ‘energies of the CAMHS team’ that ‘were directed to ensuring appropriate referrals’ for me happened almost exclusively outside of the therapy sessions that Mark Birbeck conducted with my daughter, 5^th Feb 2021 to 28^th Jan 2022.

It then became clearer that MS would also need onward referral to the Adult Mental Health Team. MB reflected that his ideas on referring MS on to Adult Mental Health were perhaps adversely affected by a culture of pessimism within CAMHS as to whether that service were positive about accepting referrals. He said that the complaint had led to a process of self-reflection regarding possible clinical matters he could have managed in a different way.

7) THIS STATEMENT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES MARK BIRBECK’S INCOMPETENCE. If he was a truly competent clinician endowed with sufficient practical knowledge about OCD he would know that OCD is best treated by use of CBT, Cognitive behavioural Therapy INCLUDING ERP, Exposure and Response Prevention. Did the ACP investigators ask Mark Birbeck to forward evidence that he was applying CBT including ERP to deal with my daughter’s chronic OCD? Where is that evidence, written in session notes or other clinical records? My own observations of the therapy and other clinical interventions currently being delivered by clinicians at Adult Services at the CMHT The Bridge Centre, Basingstoke support the belief that CBT including ERP IN CONJUNCTION with ADDITIONAL intense, specialist psychological therapy running in conjunction with CBT and ERP is the best course of treatment for my daughter. Mark Birbeck decision to attempt to deal with my daughter’s OCD within CAMHS has denied appropriate and timely treatment by truly competent clinicians. Mark Birbeck allowed a culture of pessimism to cloud his clinical judgement. IT WASN’T UP TO HIM, NOR ANY OTHER OF HIS COHORTS WITHIN CAMHS TO ALLOW THEIR FATALIST ATTITUDE TOWARD ANOTHER HEALTHCARE TRUST TO INFLUENCE A CLINICAL DECISION. That is an APPALLING admission by Mark Birbeck, and indeed, Sarie Hodgson, Lead Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist of CAMHS. The collective, unprofessional cynicism of Mark Birbeck and his cohorts within CAMHS delayed competent psychotherapy by at least 9 months and, according to NICE guidelines on Transition from Child Services to Adult Services by 13 months. I will remind you AGAIN that I made a credible attempt on my own life during April 2022 while waiting for CMHT The Bridge Centre to accept my daughter into their service. I could, if not for a certain amount of good fortune, actually be dead by now. Mark Birbeck and his cohorts would then have been partially culpable.

SH added that the Trust Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist group had also considered the complaint together, and stressed that she would want Mr. S to know they had taken his concerns seriously and wanted to learn from them.

8) I AM CYNICAL OF ANY ASSURANCES GIVEN BY CAMHS BASINGSTOKE CLINICIANS. I have gathered around 800 pages ( at the original time of writing autumn 2023 ) of evidence in the process of investigating failures by CAMHS, the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, CMHT The Bridge Centre and Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. That evidence proves multiple examples of deception, misrepresentation and blatant lies by CAMHS clinicians and leadership staff working for the Sussex Partnership. Information Governance at the Sussex Partnership ( inadvertently? ) forwarded incriminating evidence to me before a decision was made by them to cease cooperating with me. I believe that Mark Birbeck has also been guilty of misrepresenting me. Evidence reported in this very Investigation Report proves him to be an unreliable witness, at least.

Regarding the question of whether a Lead Practitioner was identified for the case, MB explained that after three months of work with MS it became clearer that further support was needed from CAMHS colleagues. MB therefore brought MS’s case for discussion at the Multidisciplinary Team Care Planning meeting dated 30.06.21 with the aims of securing a colleague to undertake parent work, and the allocation of responsibility to a Lead Practitioner. At this meeting it was agreed that a colleague would offer to work with Mr. S to support MS’s treatment. She was not able to begin this work immediately but started three months later. MB clarified there was no discussion at the meeting regarding a Lead Practitioner, and he therefore assumed this role in the absence of any other clinician. MB explained that this was within the context of the service as a whole being very under resourced and therefore Lead Practitioners were only being allocated for those cases considered to be most highly at risk.

9) MARK BIRBECK CONSIDERED REFERRING MY DAUGHTER TO ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AT THIS MEETING. Now I understand that he assumed the role of Lead Practitioner following this meeting. Mark Birbeck became the defacto Lead Practitioner and is recorded as having considered referring my daughter to Adult Services. I have already supplied document ‘megan 1***************** MDT discussion’ to the ACP investigators that states ‘MB considering referral to AMH’. Things could not be any clearer. Mark Birbeck considered referring my daughter to AMH services on the 30^th June 2021 but chose not to. His lack of knowledge of the actual precise details of the CAMHS Transition Protocol is now made irrelevant at this point.

Any allocation of a Lead Practitioner would have to be officially sanctioned through the service Team Manager. Regarding whether the issue of transition - either to Adult Mental Health or as a general discussion - was discussed together with Mr. S, MB recalled holding four review meetings with Mr. S - one by himself, and the further three together with the parent worker. MB’s memory was that transition would have been discussed with Mr. S in the later reviews, but this would need to be clarified.

10) CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. MARK BIRBECK ACTUALLY ATTENDED JUST ONE ‘REVIEW MEETING’ WITH ME AND THE PARENT WORKER, SALLY MUNGALL AND THAT WAS ON THE 13^TH JANUARY 2022 FOR MY DAUGHTER’S ‘FINAL REVIEW’. No mention of transition to Adult Services was ever mentioned during any of my other meetings with Mark Birbeck, even though he had considered referring my daughter throughout the therapy sessions.

Future provision would also have been referred to, for example, in email correspondence. SH added that it is standard practice for discussion on transition to take place once a young person reaches 17. MB acknowledged that such discussion with the family could have been more timely. However, he did not believe that reading the Transition Care Protocol would have necessarily affected his thinking, due to the factors referred to above.

11) ACCORDING TO NICE GUIDELINES ON TRANSITION FROM CHILD SERVICES TO ADULT SERVICES, PREPARATIONS FOR TRANSITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE 5^TH FEBRUARY 2021 WHEN MY DAUGHTER WAS ASSESSED AS AN EMERGENCY CASE.

‘1.2 Transition planning Timing and review 1.2.1 For groups not covered by health, social care and education legislation, practitioners should start planning for adulthood from year 9 (age 13 or 14) at the latest. For young people entering the service close to the point of transfer, planning should start immediately.’

Reading the CAMHS Transition care protocol would have provoked immediate action from any other competent clinician. Mark Birbeck’s assertion that reading the protocol would not ‘have necessarily affected his thinking’ is surely an damning admission of poor clinical judgement and maybe even malpractice?

2. Online meeting with Mr. S on 28.07.23.Just before the meeting Mr. S sent a document further outlining the reasons for his complaint.He was thanked for this and assured that the IP would look at it in detail before compiling their report. Main points arising from the response of MB to the complaint (as in the notes above) were then outlined in order to give Mr. S the opportunity to consider these and respond in turn. These points related to the Transition Care Protocol, the referral on to Adult Mental Health, the Lead Practitioner role and the part played by a multi-disciplinary team. It was highlighted by the IP that MB had taken the complaint very seriously and had been reflective and professional in his response. It was explained to Mr. S that at the time MB became involved he was relatively new to the Service. His induction had been therefore ended by the Trust cancelling all non-clinical work, therefore the session on Transition policy did not happen as it should have. In addition, more experienced, senior staff do not appear to have been as forthcoming with advice as they might have been.Mr. S conveyed his concern about the severity of his daughter’s OCD symptoms, which had worsened in the time between her assessment and the offer of psychotherapy treatment, and resulted in his taking her to A&E as an emergency. He said he took the earliest opportunity he could to meet with MB to explain his concerns and despair. At that point he felt that his daughter needed ‘something more’, that is, specialist care for OCD as per the NICE guidance, and possibly residential care. He felt CAMHS would not be ‘up to the task’. At the same time, Mr. S recognised that his daughter had abandonment & trauma issues as a result of her mother’s actions, and that these matters could be helpfully addressed through psychotherapy. He reported that his daughter liked MB, and that he himself also found MB to be personable. However, Mr. S felt that when things were not getting better and he tried to explain his concerns about the OCD again to MB, offering to write down all that happened at home, MB was ‘quite dismissive’. Mr. S became unsure if MB had the right skill set to help with MS’s OCD symptoms, and shared his view with MB that a different intervention was needed. He said in response MB offered 4 additional sessions which would extend the treatment by a month. MS shared his view with the IP that parents know their child best and that MB did not seem to take this into account. It was highlighted to MS that work with the parent is offered alongside psychotherapy with the young person as an important way of including parents; and that their helpful ideas about their child can inform the Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist’s treatment of the child via the parent worker, who can also advise the parent on managing troubling behaviours. MS said in his view, in this case, the parent worker ‘abused her position and was guilty of clinical malpractice’.Regarding the referral on to Adult Mental Health, Mr. S was informed of the reasons given by MB as to why this did not take place sooner (see above). Mr. S said that he did not feel autism or trauma were the main significant factors and that the OCD symptoms had become the major concern. Mr. S spoke of the severity of MS’ OCD symptoms - her lack of self-care, for example not having washed her hair for a considerable period of time. Mr. S explained that he had attended many courses regarding autism which had assisted him in understanding his daughter. However, she had become ‘unrecognisable’ and needed specialist care which hecame to feel MB wasn’t able to provide, and that MB should therefore have referred MS on to another treatment. Mr. S added that he was subsequently advised by a clinician in the Adult Mental Health Team that if MS had been referred earlier, she would have seen an ‘OCD specialist’ sooner and be better by now.Regarding the role of Lead Practitioner, Mr. S said he had understood that MB’s colleague, the parent worker, was the Clinical Lead. His understanding was that these were the only CAMHS professionals involved in his daughter’s case, and that the parent worker was MB’s supervisor. It was explained to him that the decision to offer psychotherapy to MS would likely have been made by a previous Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist who assessed MS before MB joined the service. He would have then been allocated her case. It was also the case that the Multidisciplinary Team would have had a part to play in the Care Planning Meeting, where more senior professionals than MB were present. These colleagues would have taken into account the current presentation and queried the offer of psychotherapy treatment if they thought that was not appropriate. Mr. S said there had been over a year between assessment and treatment during which time his daughter had deteriorated significantly. In the absence of an identification of a Lead Practitioner by more senior colleagues at the Care Planning meeting, MB had taken on this role by default. It was explained to Mr. S that at that time a Lead Practitioner was only being allocated only for cases considered to be at ‘high risk’: and that this would need to be agreed by the CAMHS Team Manager.It was also explained that MB had regular supervision from a Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist, and that the ACP has a system in place to ensure the governance of this. Mr. S asked for the name of the supervisor and whether supervision sessions are recorded. Neither of these queries could be verified by the IP but it was stated that it is considered best practice for notes of the supervision to be taken. Mr. S conveyed his concern about the Health Trust, who he felt were responsible for ‘serious mismanagement and lot of bad housekeeping’. He said he was being denied access to records, and was seeking a court order as the Trust was ‘hiding lots of bad practice.’ Mr. S explained that he ‘just needed to get to the truth’, and was ‘determined to do the right thing’. He added that he would accept the findings of the IP.3. Following these two meetings the IP was able to look at the documents sent by Mr. S, as well as further information supplied by MB. From this information the IP clarified the following:

a) The Hampshire Transition Care Protocol concerns those cases where a transition to Adult Mental Health is considered necessary. It lays out what steps should be taken from when a patient reaches 17 years, and when decisions need to be made at 17.5 yrs. In paragraph 5.3 it also discusses potential exemptions:5.3 Flexibility of age of Transition In some cases it may be necessary for services to be more flexible. Where there are important clinical reasons, CAMHS will extend their work beyond the 18th birthday for a period of time. Reasons can include: It is possible to complete a piece of therapeutic work so that transfer of care to Adult Mental Health/Learning Disability services is not deemed necessary at the time.

12) IT WAS NEVER GOING TO BE POSSIBLE FOR MARK BIRBECK TO COMPLETE THE OCD WORK WITH ANY REASONABLE, EMPIRICALLY MEASUREABLE SUCCESS. More competent and experienced clinicians at CMHT The Bridge Centre have determined that my daughter is best served by a programme of CBT including ERP to run concurrently with specialist talking therapy in accordance with NICE guidelines on Treating Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Body Dysmorphic Disorder in Adults, Children and Young People.

b) MB’s additional information refers to his having previously worked within the Health Trust and having a reasonable working knowledge of the process of transition for young people, if not in its finer detail. MS was part of the first cohort of patients he was allocated, several of whom were over 17 and had been on the waiting list for an extended period of time. MB had frequent conversations with his Line Manager about all of these cases and requested holding them open to CAMHS past their 18th birthday, allowing for more time to complete the clinical work and oversee any possible referrals post 18. In the case of MS his intention had been to bring the clinical work to a close in the weeks following her 18th birthday and use the additional time for appropriate clinical discussions and care planning. She did then remain open to CAMHS for a further 4 months beyond her 18th birthday.

13 ) FACTUALLY UNTRUE WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF MONTHS MY DAUGHTER’S CASE REMAINED OPEN. Again, another admission by Mark Birbeck, that he had a reasonable working knowledge of the process of transition for young people, which appears to go beyond his assertion that I addressed in rebuttal 2) above. Meg did, indeed, remain open to CAMHS for an additional THREE MONTHS beyond her 18^th birthday and not four months but she only had an additional 4 therapy sessions with Mark Birbeck. No attempt to transfer my daughter to Adult Services until the 8^th March 2022.

While it is true that in the event the Adult Mental Health referral was made only a few weeks before her closure to CAMHS MB notes that during that time letters were sent to her GP requesting that they review medication and monitor her mental health in the period she was awaiting the outcome of the Adult Mental Health referral. MB adds that the decline in Mr. S’s mental health necessitated multiple responses from CAMHS clinicians, including an Adult MentalHealth referral for him, Social Care Safeguarding referrals for both him and MS, liaison with Police, and the involvement of CAMHS managers and Safeguarding professionals. MB acknowledges that as a result of this there was a short but perhaps inevitable delay in the Adult Mental Health referral for MS.

13) CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. See my rebuttal 6) above for details.

MB also reflects on the possibility that his knowledge of the entirety of the Transition Care Protocol was also affected by the absence of a Team Manager at Basingstoke over a period of several months, when he was initially working with MS. There was also a period during which all non-essential clinical tasks were halted to cope with the pressure on the service created by the post-COVID referrals.

14) DISPUTED. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRANSITION PROTOCOL WAS UNNECESSARY AS MB ALREADY HAD EXPERIENCE IN TRANSITION AND THAT EXPERIENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO INITIATE TRANSITION, REGARDLESS OF THE DETAILS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROTOCOL. I have addressed this in rebuttals above.

15) TRANSITION REFERRAL SHOULD NOT FALL UNDER ‘NON ESSENTIAL CLINICAL TASKS’. Referrals to Adult Services are ESSENTIAL tasks, surely?

c) At the Care Planning meeting it is recorded that MB brought MS for discussion as she was 17.5yrs and still presenting with OCD symptoms. Although there is no record of the Transition Care Protocol being referred to in this meeting, the fact of MS having reached the threshold for consideration for transition was implicitly noted by stating her age.

16) ‘IMPLICITLY NOTED BY STATING HER AGE’ IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND DISPLAYS AN ATTITUDE OF LAZINESS AND CASUAL INDIFFERENCE. A trained professional healthcare worker with responsibility over such a vulnerable, mentally ill patient should NOT be relaying on implied statements. Having stated my daughter’s age, Mark Birbeck should have EXPLICITLY raised the consideration for referral. That EXPLICIT referral should have made its way into my daughter’s medical record. It DIDN’T which is evidence that it was allowed to slip during the Care Planning meeting. Referral to Adult Services was overlooked during the discussion because Mark Birbeck relied on implied information and not explicitly stated information.

No other clinicians at this multidisciplinary meeting are recorded as having advised MB to lookat the Transition Care Protocol or to have queried the treatment plan for psychotherapy to continue, and it was agreed that MB would consider onward referral to Adult Mental Health.

17) IF IT WAS TRULY AGREED THAT MARK BIRBECK ‘WOULD CONSIDER ONWARD REFERRAL TO ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THEN WHY DID HE NOT WHAT WAS AGREED?

d) In their sessions MB did discuss with MS issues regarding her future care - for example, in the light of her diagnosis for ASD - but this did not involve considering a referral to Adult Mental Health until MB observed that MS’s difficulties had become more pronounced. Until then his clinical judgement was that psychotherapy treatment could be effective in working with her. He had direct experience of this with a previous patient with compulsions no less pronounced, where he saw considerable success in symptom reduction. MB’s view was that had he decided that another treatment option would have been more appropriate MS would then have had a considerable further wait before being able to access something other than psychotherapy. There was a real urgency for an intervention for MS and MB acknowledges the possibility that the thought of returning her to a waiting list in a state of crisis might have played a small part in his thinking. However, his clinical opinion was that there were already solid grounds for the decision that MS could be helped by Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist. This aligns with the view of the assessing clinicians at the time of her referral to the service. MS had been placed on the Trauma pathway, and was seen for a Specialist Trauma Assessment on 12.9.19. Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist was recommended and MS had also expressed a strong preference for this treatment, explicitly stating she would like to work within a relationship where she could explore her feelings by talking. MB indicates that she reiterated this view to the duty clinician who spoke to her in the run up to his assessment, and again in the course of treatment.

18) IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR MARK BIRBECK TO USE HIS EXPERIENCE WITH A FORMER PATIENT SO EXCLUSIVELY. My daughter is a patient in her own right with her own very particular psychological presentation. What does Mark Birbeck mean by ‘no less pronounced’? In what ways were there commonalities between my daughter and Mark Birbeck’s previous patient and in what ways were there differences? What were the actual ‘solid grounds’ for the decision that my daughter could be helped by a Child and Adolescent psychotherapist? How far did the ACP investigators pursue this line of enquiry?

e) MB’s additional information refers to guidelines for psychotherapy within the Trust. These outline that because psychotherapy involves in-depth work with some of the most complex patients in CAMHS, a Lead Practitioner should be allocated to allow a separation of roles and freedom to concentrate on the clinical task. However, at that time, the reality on the ground was that the team at Basingstoke was severely depleted and simultaneously struggling to manage a surge in referrals due to the pandemic. MB was therefore aware that if requested it was highly unlikely for a Lead Practitioner to have been allocated, and this was especially so once there were two allocated clinicians working closely on the case and MS also open to Psychiatry for medication review. There were not sufficient numbers of clinicians working in CAMHS at the time to meet the demand for Lead Practitioners, and those there were, were generally assigned to patients where there was risk of suicide orinpatient admission. This meant that MB and the parent work had to divide up the tasks which would in an ideal situation have fallen to a Lead Practitioner.

19) IF CAMHS WAS INDEED COMPROMISED AND THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO A LEAD PRACTIONER THEN MARK BIRBECK, AND PARENT WORKER, SALLY MUNGALL, SHOULD HAVE ERRED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND PROMOTED SAFE POLICY BY REFERRING MY DAUGHTER TO ADULT SERVICES IMMEDIATELY. Such safe policy would have meant that my daughter would have a seamless and immediate transition to Adult Services should the therapy at CAMHS fail. Mark Birbeck assumed responsibility of Lead Practitioner role and therefore assumed ALL responsibility for my daughter’s welfare. He therefore should assume responsibility for ALL the failures in his role as a Lead Practitioner. I note that Sally Mungall also shared some of this responsibility and I will be forwarding this rebuttal to the Health and Care Professions Council who are currently investigating her in relation to multiple other issues of clinical malpractice.

f) Additional information sent to the IP by Mr. S elaborates on his remarks at the online meeting. He states that he voiced his scepticism over MB’s optimism that MS could be treated successfully within the relatively short period of time available. On at least two other occasions when MS, at short notice, felt she was unable to attend her therapy sessions with MB, he took the opportunity to use the session time to appraise MB of MS’s conditionand to further express scepticism at his insistence that another month or two extension beyond her 18th birthday was the best and only option. Mr. S states that was not aware that plans should already have been in place for transition to Adult Services. He says that this was not presented to him as an option, let alone as actual policy and protocol. Mr. S adds that he was not given a formal opportunity to raise any concerns or queries. And that he experienced resistance from MB at his attempts to raise them. Mr. S’s recollection is that the only time that Adult Services was mentioned was during the final review for MS and himself with MB and the parent worker held on the 13th January 2022. Even though he was visibly distraught at the understanding that MS was about to be discharged from CAMHS without any continuation of mental health care provision, his memory is that the clinicians voiced the view that Adult Services were patchy and inadequate and unlikely to be of any real help. By the end of this review the clinicians promised to raise Safeguarding concerns. In his written information Mr. S shared his view with the IP that ‘hindsight reveals there had been no intention, at that point, of referring MS to Adult Services’.Conclusion

In addressing the substance of the complaint regarding MB, the circumstances and context in which he was working need to be recognised. These include:⋅ a lack of resources within CAMHS which resulted in long waiting lists, delays in treatment, and staff shortages.⋅ the impact of COVID and consequent increases in demand, both on service delivery and the emotional pressure on clinicians to function at their highest level.Within this context were specific factors - the absence of a Team Manager for part of this period; the lack of availability of Lead Practitioners; a culture of ambivalence towards Adult Mental Health.

MB’s commitment to his patient is clear and they did have discussions about her future care in a general sense, and particularly following her diagnosis of ASD. MB’s previous clinical experience reinforced his belief that psychotherapy could help MS and alleviate her OCD symptoms.

20) MARK BIRBECK RECKLESSLY OVERESTIMATED HIS COMPETENCE. He should have recognised this immediately and referred my daughter to Adult Services as safe practice and a caution against failure by CAMHS to actually treat my daughter’s OCD. Mark Birbeck’s decisions fall somewhere between ignorance and actual hubris.

He had had limited time to work with MS and his opinion was that the treatment needed to be given a reasonable chance of taking root.

21) THIS COMMENT MAKES NO SENSE. Limited timeframes meant Mark Birbeck’s chances of successfully treating my daughter’s OCD were equally limited

At the Care Planning Meeting it would have been open to the other professionals present - including Consultant Child Psychiatrists - to query whether another treatment would be more appropriate but this did not happen. Given the shortage of resources and waiting times, it seems also that had a referral been made for alternative treatment in CAMHS there would not have been an available clinician within the time frame.

22) I ACTUALLY SUGGESTED TO MARK BIRBECK THAT MY DAUGHTER MIGHT BENEFIT FROM A RESIDENTIAL STAY AT A CENTRE SPECIALISING IN OCD TREATMENT. This would have been outside and beyond CAMHS purview.

MB’s knowledge of the Transition Care Protocol was hampered by the cancellation of his Induction Programme due to COVID, and the halting of non-essential clinical tasks. Moreover, it seems to be the case that none of his more senior colleagues drew his attention to the Protocol and that it would be best practice to follow it and share it with the patient. This did not appear to happen at the Care Planning Meeting, nor in other forums where MB presented the case, such as individual monthly supervision and the monthly Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist peer supervision meetings.

23) DISPUTED. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRANSITION PROTOCOL WAS UNNECESSARY AS MB ALREADY HAD EXPERINCE IN TRANSITION AND THAT EXPERIENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO INITIATE TRANSITION, REGARDLESS OF THE DETAILS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROTOCOL. I have addressed this in rebuttals above.

The IP is therefore left with the conclusion that there does not seem to have been a general awareness in the team as a whole about the implementation of the Transition Care Protocol. This conclusion is perhaps given weight by the fact that a Practitioner within the team was subsequently identified to be a Link Person with Adult Mental Health.

24) THE FACTS AROUND THE LINK WORKER IDENTIFIED WITHIN CAMHS ARE AS FOLLOWS. I had been in protracted meetings with Farayi Nyakubaya, the Head of Nursing at CMHT The Bridge Centre throughout the autumn of 2022 and up until the beginning of 2023 to address my complaints about CMHT. It was Farayi who first posed the question ‘why had CAMHS not made a timely referral of my daughter to CMHT The Bridge Centre?’ This was followed up in communication with Gemma Stubbington, Head of Clinical Services at CMHT The Bridge Centre

‘Following a meeting earlier today ( 6^th Jan 2023 ) with Farayi Nyakubaya, Head of Nursing at CMHT The Bridge Centre, held to bring the Southern Health portion of my complaint SP22020 to final resolution, I was informed that my daughter, Meg Stock, former patient at Camhs, Basingstoke, should have been referred to CMHT The Bridge Centre when she turned 17 and a half years old. Farayi told me that this was policy designed to provide a seamless and timely transition between Camhs and The Bridge Centre and where both teams of healthcare providers would be working together to provide Meg uninterrupted mental health care. According to this policy Meg should have been referred to The Bridge Centre on the 10^th June 2021 but was not actually handed over until 8^th March 2022. The delay in referral added considerable distress to both Meg and myself as her main carer and has significantly impacted psychological intervention by The Bridge Centre. Farayi has told me that Camhs failure to refer Meg at age 17 and a half was either a mistake or a clinical decision although he would not be drawn into speculating what clinical decision might have prevented a prompt referral. Please would you ask the appropriate clinicians at Camhs, Basingstoke to advise if the reason not to refer Meg to The Bridge Centre on the 10^th June 2021 was a mistake or to advise me on the precise explanation for the clinical decision if this was the case.

Communication was finally concluded on Sun 19^th March 2023 with the following email from Gemma Stubbington, Clinical Services Manager at CMHT, The Bridge Centre ( Adult Services ).

Dear Mark

Thank you for your email.

Jenny is the CAMHS transition link worker.

The meeting we have set up was already planned as when I arrived in Basingstoke in January I wanted to understand the local working plan and ensure the working process for both teams was in place, no new process will be made it is to ensure it is aligned with the planned process’.

The working agreement between Sussex partnership which is CAMHS and Southern health is embedded on the policy on transition from childrens services to adults services on the southern health website. I am unsure if this can be sighted by the public and will look to understand this for you.

Kind regards

Gemma

It is my understanding that the establishing of a Link worker at CAMHS was in direct response to my complaint initially being addressed by Farayi Nyakubaya. It is likely that this would have remained a serious oversight within CAMHS if not for my complaints.

It should be noted that the Transition Care Protocol is written to provide guidance to clinicians on good practice, rather than being a compulsory document.

25) IF THIS IS TRULY THE CASE THEN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REVIEW OF THIS POLICY SHOULD BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. Failure to follow transition protocol has potential for catastrophic consequences. My daughter’s case proves the need to make consideration of child to adult services a mandatory step in appraising patients within CAMHS.

Having noted all the above, however, it can be said that it would have been good practice for MB to acquaint himself with the Transition Care Protocol whilst treating a patient over 17 years. In sharing the Protocol MB would then have been in a position to allude to paragraph 5.3 (as above): In some cases, it may be necessary for services to be more flexible. Where there are important clinical reasons, CAMHS will extend their work beyond the 18th birthday for a period of time. Reasons can include:It is possible to complete a piece of therapeutic work so that transfer of care to Adult Mental Health/Learning Disability services is not deemed necessary at the time.

This would have provided MB with a basis on which to explain his clinical decision to continue and complete his clinical work using his judgement of the patient’s therapeutic needs.

26) JUST WHERE ARE THE RECORDS THAT DEMONSTRATE MARK BIRBECK’S RATIONALE BEHIND HIS CLINICAL DECISIONS? Did the ACP investigators ask Mark Birbeck for such evidence ?

Within the model of Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist it is recognised that it is helpful for the parent worker to take on the role of speaking to parents about such matters, leaving the Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist free to focus on the young person. So in this case it might have been expected for the parent worker to have shared the Transition Care Protocol with Mr. S, but it does not appear that this happened.

27) THE ‘PARENT WORKER’, SALLY MUNGALL, DID NOT UNDERTAKE A ROLE IN SPEAKING TO ME TO IDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSITION MY DAUGHTER FROM CAMHS TO ADULT SERVICES. Where is the evidence that proves this role was formally discussed, delegated and agreed between Sally Mungall and Mark Birbeck?

MB did himself have some conversations with MS’ father when Mr. S asked to use her therapy sessions in her absence. However, MB may have understandably been cautious in opening up a detailed discussion with him about planning without having secured MS’s consent, as she was his patient.

28) MARK BIRBECK SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR MEG FOR HER CONSENT TO OPENLY DISCUSS HER CASE WITH ME, HER FATHER AND MAIN CARER. Meg has always been asked to provide consent and given consent readily when dealing with ALL other aspects of her healthcare with ALL other healthcare providers and practitioners. It is my belief that Mark Birbeck thought I was unhealthily enmeshed with my daughter; he raised this very point during one of my meeting with him and I strenuously denied this. It is my belief that he was determined to sideline me as much as possible.

The IP acknowledges this could have been experienced by Mr. S as resistance. Attending to the Transition Care Protocol became less of a priority when the energies of MB and his colleagues were being directed towards acknowledging a decline in Mr. S’s mental health and ensuring that his welfare was being addressed by liaising with the appropriate agencies.

29) CATAGORICALLY UNTRUE. I have addressed this in previous rebuttals. I regard this persistent attempt by Mark Birbeck to blame his professional failures on my own mental health as particularly odious.

In taking all this into account, the IP has reached the decision that there has not been a breach of ACP Code with respect to either Section 1.1 or Section 4.3.Recommendation

The IP notes that MB has taken the opportunity to reflect on events and indicated a wish to learn from the experience with the aim of improving his practice. The IP recommends that this can best take place within the wider context of systemic issues also being considered and addressed. The IP will summarise these issues in a letter to the relevant managers within CAMHS.

30) IN SUMMARY I AM TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO STATE THAT I BELIEVE THE INVESTIGATION REPORT COMPILED BY THE INVESTIGATORS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHILD PSYCHOTHERAPISTS WAS BASED ON INCOMPLETE AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT INFORMATION. I have not seen evidence brought to bear by Mark Birbeck to corroborate his account of events or to substantiate his clinical decisions. It may be usual practice of ACP investigations to overlook such evidence and I am not in any position, as a complainant, to demand such evidence but I am dismayed and somewhat alarmed that Mark Birbeck’s word alone is considered sufficient during such investigations.

I had hoped to be satisfied with the investigation report and been in a position to accept its findings and decision but I cannot, in good faith, move forward with confidence that justice has been served.

I will, therefore, be forwarding this rebuttal by way of appeal to the Professional Standards Authority, and make the contents of this investigation report available to a much wider audience including private litigators working on my behalf and also to the national press. The information contained within is pertinent to wider concerns about CAMHS and the Sussex Partnership and is a matter of public concern.

Mark Stock

UPDATE 2^nd August 2025. It has since been established that the correct psychotherapy for my daughter’s severe OCD was EXPOSURE and RESPONSE PREVENTION. Meg has now received FIFTY-THREE sessions of ERP psychotherapy through Adult Services at CMHT, The Bridge Centre but she is still not fully recovered. Mark Birbeck was profoundly unqualified and inexperienced in OCD. His decision NOT to refer my daughter to Adult Services ( because his ‘opinion’ that AS were ‘patchy’ ; ultimately NOT his decision to make ) significantly delayed appropriate clinical intervention.

I also made complaints about CAMHS General Manager, Wanda Reynolds to her regulatory board, SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND

subset LIST OF COMPLAINTS

3^rd November 2023

1) DISHONESTY Ref email and attached letter 23^rd March 2022. Wanda Reynolds states that ‘I appreciate that in your final session you discussed the return of your art work and you agreed with Sally that you would make contact when you felt ready. Unfortunately, whilst this was agreed with Sally we are unable to facilitate a further appointment to hand the art work over as Meg is now closed to our service.’ Wanda Reynolds was DISHONEST with her words. Evidence later revealed in my medical records disclosed by Southern Health on the 15^th June 2022 shows that the real reason for denying me a rescheduled meeting with Sally Mungall was because of my 12 page letter to Sally Mungall on the 23^rd December 2021 and the false perception that I had somehow infringed the ‘theraputic boundaries’ and developed an ‘obsessional attachment’ to Sally Mungall. Wanda Reynolds goes on to state that she had ‘spoken with Sally and she is now aware that this cannot be facilitated,’ implying a recent conversation when in reality Wanda Reynolds had already been involved in meetings with clinical leads and leadership staff, including Sally Mungall herself, to devise plans to manage me as a perceived problem as far back as the beginning of January and early February 2022. Those plans were confirmed by way of disclosure by Katie Rees of Information Governance Sussex Partnership on the 9^th August 2022 of ‘CAREnotes-Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion’. Those CAREnotes, while heavily redacted, showed plans to deceive me and monitor me. Those plans later evolved into plans to manipulate me, wrongly pathologise me and eventually criminalise me. In her response to my formal complaint SP2202O Wanda Reynolds admitted to being involved in discussions with clinical leads and leadership staff and would have had, or should of had, full knowledge of those plans. Later evidence confirms that Wanda Reynolds perception of me was that I was ‘obsessed’ with Sally Mungall.

The question arises, did Wanda Reynolds make a proper forensic enquiry into the true nature of the ‘parent work’ delivered to me by Camhs art therapist, Sally Mungall between 2^nd Sept 2021 and 16^th Dec 2021 in line with her duty as a general manager? Did Wanda Reynolds properly investigate Sally Mungall during her initial intervention during Jan and Feb 2022 and access Sally Mungall’s therapy session notes at that time? If Wanda Reynolds DID make a proper forensic enquiry into the true nature of the ‘parent work’ then why did she not appreciate my vulnerability and take immediate action to safeguard me by contacting me directly at the time? Why did she not take full responsibility and accept that I had been, or at least, likely to have been the victim of clinical malpractice and take appropriate and immediate action? If Wanda Reynolds did not make a proper forensic enquiry into the ‘parent work’ and into Sally Mungall then why not? Surely failure to make the proper forensic enquiry amounts to gross misconduct on the part of Wanda Reynolds. This failure contributed to my suicide attempt later in the year.

Wanda Reynolds statement that ‘I appreciate that in your final session you discussed the return of your art work and you agreed with Sally that you would make contact when you felt ready. Unfortunately, whilst this was agreed with Sally we are unable to facilitate a further appointment to hand the art work over as Meg is now closed to our service,’ hides some terrible truths. That statement is, at best, DISINGENUOUS, at worst, DISHONEST.

2) DISHONESTY A meeting was held at the Bridge Centre on the 20^th May 2022 between Wanda Reynolds, general manager at CMHT the Bridge Centre, Vicky Long and myself to discuss complaints that I had made against both Camhs and CMHT. I had asked for medical records to be disclosed by Sussex Partnership on behalf of Camhs but technical issues at Information Governance Sussex Partnership meant full disclosure was delayed. Wanda Reynolds managed to secure the session notes written by Sally Mungall during ‘parent work’ with me between Sept and Dec 2021. She handed them over to me claiming that they were complete. I later discovered that they were actually incomplete. I received additional ( but still incomplete ) ‘session notes’ from Katie Rees of Information Governance Sussex Partnership 5^th Oct 2022 that included ‘megan 1***************** case disc following first appointment’ where Sally Mungall writes ‘Strong countertransference of feeling violated by the intrusiveness in the room.’ Why did Wanda Reynolds withhold this from me? I believe this was withheld from me by Wanda Reynolds because ‘countertransference’ was brought into the therapeutic room by Sally Mungall herself and this could reflect negatively on Sally Mungall. Wanda Reynolds decision to withhold ‘session notes’ from me has one obvious purpose and that is to protect Camhs staff member, Sally Mungall. How does withholding ‘session notes’ benefit or protect me? Disclosing this evidence does not have negative consequences for my mental health. Withholding evidence has negative consequences for my mental health. Note-there are still ‘session notes’ from two separate dates that are currently being withheld from me. Knowledge that evidence is being withheld contributes to mistrust and paranoia.

3) DISHONESTY Dr Natalie Roberts was also invited to the meeting held at the Bridge Centre on the 20^th May 2022 but did not attend. My suspicions have been aroused since that meeting that Dr Roberts had been invited to attend so that she could psychologically evaluate me for the purposes of Camhs managing me. Precedence had already been set earlier in the year when Sally Mungall specifically asked the Bridge Centre to use a mental health assessment of my in Feb 2022 to gauge my feelings toward her.

In an email to me dated 8^th July 2022, Wanda Reynolds wrote

· Dr Natalie Roberts was not attending the meeting to evaluate you. Dr Roberts is a clinical psychologist and our clinical lead for the county, she had been going to attend to answer any clinical questions you had about the work with Sally. Unfortunately on the day of our meeting she was called away to attend to another meeting and therefore did not attend with me.

If Dr Roberts was truly going to attend to answer any clinical questions I had about the work with Sally then why was there no attempt to arrange a new appointment? I was, and still am at the time of writing these words, in deep distress bordering on suicide over confusion as to what had happened to me during ‘parent work’ with Sally Mungall. To date, I have had thirty therapy sessions with another psychotherapist ostensibly to understand what had happened to me during ‘parent work’ with Sally Mungall. I had made repeated requests for my cancelled meeting of the 3^rd Feb 2023 with Sally Mungall to be reinstated because I needed answers to questions. I needed closure. Those requests were denied. If Wanda Reynolds truly understood my distress and acknowledged the damage done to me then she would surely have done everything within her power to help me. If Dr Roberts had the competence and authority to answer any of my clinical questions I had about my work with Sally then it would have been not only prudent but an absolute necessity of professional duty to provide access to Dr Roberts.

I put it to you, the reader, that Wanda Reynolds accessed Sally Mungall’s ‘session notes’ from the ‘parent work’ and read them, for the first time, prior to the meeting of the 20^th May 2022. That was the first time I believe Wanda Reynolds truly understood the nature of the work carried out by Sally Mungall and the very real damage done to me as a result. I believe that her words ‘We ( Camhs ) have damaged you’ ( uttered twice ) were informed by the reading of those ‘session notes’. Did Dr Roberts also read those ‘session notes’ at the same time and advise Wanda Reynolds accordingly? Did knowledge of the content of those ‘session notes’ influence Dr Roberts decision not to attend the meeting of the 20^th May 2022?

In that same email to me dated 8^th July 2022, Wanda Reynolds wrote

· Dr Roberts has been involved in the conversations about not offering the session on the 3^rd February and was in agreement with this.

Where are the records of those conversations? Was Dr Roberts privy to Sally Mungall’s ‘session notes’ at the time of these ‘conversations’ and if so, what was Dr Roberts informed, professional advice to Wanda Reynolds regarding my safeguarding? Did Dr Roberts make categorical statements about my mental health that would imply immediate action on the part of Wanda Reynolds?

4) DISHONESTY Wanda Reynolds told me twice during the meeting held at the Bridge Centre on the 20^th May 2022 that ‘We ( Camhs ) have damaged you. This was the first admission of clinical malpractice. I later asked for Wanda Reynolds to put those words in writing but she claimed to have no recollection of using those words. The obvious question now becomes ‘does Wanda Reynolds believe that we ( Camhs ) has damaged you (me )’? If Wanda Reynolds believes that ‘we ( camhs ) have damaged you’ then why not do as requested and put those words in writing even if she does not recall using those words at the time of the meeting of the 20^th May 2022? If she does not believe that ‘We ( Camhs ) have damaged you ( me )’ then surely that amounts to impairment of her professional judgement and calls into question her credibility as a manager because it has since become the widely held consensus of other professional clinicians that I was indeed damaged by Sally Mungall AND other clinicians and leadership staff working within Camhs.

5) NEGLECT and DISHONESTY Ref email received from Wanda Reynolds on 23^rd May 2022 states that I ‘want to acknowledge again the pain you are in and, where I as a manager could have acted differently. As I said on Friday I think on reflection it would have been better for me to talk to you on the phone rather than write to you and for this I apologise.’ The truth is that I was called by reception at Camhs, Bramblys Drive , Basingstoke the day before the appointment with art therapist Sally Mungall scheduled for the 3^rd February 2022 with the message that Sally was unable to take any of her appointments that week, including mine, due to unforeseen circumstances. I was told that someone would call me back to reschedule the appointment ( medical records prove that this was a lie and I was never going to have that appointment rescheduled ). SIX WEEKS had passed when I finally decided to email Sally Mungall and enquire about rescheduling that appointment. The truth is that Wanda Reynolds had already had meetings with ‘clinical leads’ and ‘leadership staff’ and already knew as early as January 2022 that I was to be denied that appointment. Wanda Reynolds had made an executive decision SEVERAL weeks before she finally intervened and contacted me. It is my belief that Wanda Reynolds would never have contacted me had I not written desperate emails to Sally Mungall and the Camhs, Bramblys Drive reception between 14^th Mar and 21^st Mar 2022. She eventually made some very poor excuses citing unavailability of staff etc which I believe is either a half truth or a full lie. Wanda Reynolds apologies do not cover the full extent of her failure to manage this issue. Regardless, this amounts to neglect and poor judgement on her part.

6) DISHONESTY Ref email sent by Wands Reynolds on the 31st May 2022 Wanda Reynolds states that ‘I have gone through the records and have identified notes pertaining to you. I have spoken to Katie Rees the head of our Information Governance team and I understand I need to send these to her to review and I will do that tomorrow.’ The records that were sent to Katie Rees were, again, incomplete. Missing from those records were Sally Mungall’s remaining ‘session notes’ and notes relating to ‘ professionals meeting’ of the 8^th Feb 2022 as well as notes taken throughout ( ‘operational ‘) meetings held between clinical leads and leadership staff at Camhs, Bramblys Drive during Jan and Feb 2022 to formulate plans against me.

7) MISREPRESENTATION Ref my email to Wanda Reynolds on the 15^th June 2022. I eventually spoke to her over the phone that afternoon while I was in deep distress after reading my medical records disclosed by Southern Health just hours earlier. Wanda Reynolds acknowledged that I had been ‘misrepresented’ in those medical records but evidence gathered later conclusively proves that Wanda Reynolds herself was complicit in ‘misrepresenting me’.

It is obvious that when Wanda Reynolds convened meetings with other clinical leads and leadership staff including Sally Mungall back in January and February 2022 to formulate plans against me, she had not properly investigated the circumstances of the case nor understood the true extent of the psychological damage done to me during ‘parent work’. These failures on her part as a general manager contributed to further failure to properly assess my risk to myself which manifested in my suicide attempt in April 2022. It should also be obvious that neither Wanda Reynolds nor any of her cohorts that were involved in those convened meetings anticipated that I would have the tenacity or wherewithal to seek access to my medical records from Southern Health. From the date of the email to Wanda Reynolds on the 15^th June 2022 until the 10^th August 2022 when responsibility for investigating my complaint was taken away from her and passed on to Andy Ashby of PALS Sussex Partnership, she tried to manage a bad situation by feigning empathy and sympathy in conversation and emails with me.

8) DECEPTION Ref email sent by Wanda Reynolds to me on the 20^th of June 2022. Wanda Reynolds states ‘I am so sorry that you are so distressed. One thing I have been thinking about a lot is that professionals that don't know a person will make judgements on information that gives one perspective and there is always more perspectives.‘ Wanda Reynolds emails from around this time feign concern over my welfare when all the time she appears to be ‘managing’ me while framing me as a problem in communication with other healthcare institutions. My medical records, disclosed by Southern Health on the 15^th June 20222, show how I was misrepresented by Camhs staff members. I have rebutted some of the fallacious claims made by Camhs staff in my document ‘My Complaint revised 30^th July 2022’ under ‘Medical Records The Bridge Centre Rebuttal’ starting at page 20. Those fallacious claims were formulated at the time of the convened meetings with other clinical leads and leadership staff back in January and February 2022 to formulate plans against me. Wanda Reynolds had general manager oversight of those meetings and even attended more than one of those meetings. Wanda Reynolds was complicit in misrepresenting me. Her written statement ‘I am so sorry that you are so distressed. One thing I have been thinking about a lot is that professionals that don't know a person will make judgements on information that gives one perspective and there is always more perspectives,‘ seeks to distance herself from her own judgements of me. She absolutely saw me as ‘obsessional’ with regard to Sally Mungall and used that word as recently as Monday 13^th February 2023 in email communication with Farayi Nyakubaya, the Head of Nursing at The Bridge Centre. Clear deception on Wanda Reynolds part. To reiterate; I should never have been catagorised as ‘obsessional’. I was DAMAGED by inappropriate and uncontained intense psychotherapy. Wanda Reynolds would have known this had she properly carried out her duties as a general manager.

9) MALPRACTICE Ref email sent by me on the 22^nd June 2022 to Wanda Reynolds

1) You should have made a more thorough investigation back in December prior to the 31^st of the facts surrounding my therapy with Sally before making any decisions regarding me and my proposed meeting with Sally on the 3^rd Feb.

2) The attendees of the ‘extensive meeting with senior staff at Camhs’ should also have made a more thorough investigation and not been so eager to pathologise and criminalise me.

3) Every effort should have been made to contact me immediately once the decision had been made to deny me that meeting ( something that you have already acknowledged ).’

I am careful with my words used above ‘criminalise me’. Action suggested in the Professionals Meeting convened on the 9^th February 2022 advised informing the police about me. Police were eventually sent to my home on Sun 25^th Sept 2022. )

10) DECEPTION and OBFUSCATION Ref email sent by me on the 22^nd June 2022 ‘I’m really incredulous as it seems, from multiple entries entered into my medical records, that the decision had already been made to deny me that meeting at the time that ‘end of therapy’ letter was written. Indeed, I see from yesterday’s disclosure that Sally was already in contact with CRHT Referrals the following day, 31^st December to express concern that I was going to be at ‘increased risk’ when I received ‘the information about an appointment that will be cancelled on 3^rd feb’. Obviously the ‘extensive meeting with senior staff’ at Camhs had already taken place and the decision to deny me that meeting had already taken place and the deception was already underway.’ Wanda Reynolds has since confirmed that SHE was involved in the decision to deny my meeting with Sally Mungall back in Jan and Feb 2022 for reasons far beyond the one given ie that my daughter’s case was closed. Furthermore, ‘The real point is that I have been left in the dark ever since that decision was made prior to 31^st December. Nobody ever felt that my mental welfare was important enough to warrant intervention at any and all points between that decision to deny my meeting and my formal notification to complain. In fact it has been left to me to access my medical records to finally uncover the truth. That’s almost SIX MONTHS!! that I have been purposely kept uninformed. In which time I made a credible suicide attempt.’ Wanda Reynolds was the general manager throughout those SIX MONTHS and beyond. She allowed a deception to take place and deliberately withheld the facts. She allowed a conspiracy to fester, a conspiracy that I guessed at and which contributed to my suicidal ideation. She actively sought to obfuscate the truth. If not for chance I would actually be dead now.

11) DECEPTION . Ref my email sent 24^th June 2022 which reiterated my request for disclosure of medical records relating to ‘extensive meeting’ referred to in my medical records. ‘The most significant omission from the medical records relates to the ‘extensive meeting’ held by senior staff at Camhs to discuss my 12 page letter hand delivered to Sally on the 16^th ( amended 23^rd Dec ) December 2021. There has been nothing forthcoming in the Camhs medical record disclosure relating to this meeting which I consider to be a serious overlook.’ Wanda Reynolds replied by email on the 1^st July 2022. She included the following, ‘I have now been sent the minutes of the meeting the administrator who took the notes has sent them too me but I need to get Sally to verify them as accurate as they have not been uploaded to the system. I have responded to your complaint, as has Vicky and our response has been sent back from our PALS team asking some questions where we have not been clear. This should be resolved early next week and I will also get Sally to verify the minutes next week and then they can be sent to the IG team for whether there is anything that needs to be redacted.’ The minutes that I eventually received were from the ‘professionals meeting’ held on the 9^th February 2022 with Camhs staff, CRHT Mid & North and my GP and NOT the minutes that I had requested ie from the convened meetings with other clinical leads and leadership staff including Sally Mungall back in January and February 2022 to formulate plans against me. I believe that Wanda Reynolds was purposely disingenuous in sending the minutes to a meeting specifically not asked for. For clarification going forward, one of the convened meetings with other clinical leads and leadership staff including Sally Mungall back in January and February 2022 to formulate plans against me became known as the ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1^st February 2022’.

12) DISHONESTY After repeated requests for minutes from the convened meetings with other clinical leads and leadership staff including Sally Mungall back in January and February 2022 to formulate plans against me, Wanda Reynolds emailed me to inform me that records were never kept because they were ‘operational’. I argued at length at what I perceived to be serious ethical oversight at lack of note-taking during these meetings ( decisions were being taken that had a profound and irrevocably damaging impact on me as a patient and yet no notes were taken ). An email to me sent by Katie Rees at Information Governance Sussex Partnership on the 8^th August 2022 included the following, ‘ I have been advised that we won't be disclosing the Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1^st February 2022. Unfortunately I am unable to comment further on this but you are more than entitled to detail this within your complaint to PALS or contact Wanda Reynolds for more information.’ And yet, immediately the next day on the 9^th August 2022, Katie Rees ( inadvertently? ) sent me disclosure of the ( heavily redacted ) ‘Safeguarding Internal Case Discussion from 1^st February 2022’. There was enough unredacted information contained in that disclosure to prove, conclusively, the plan, collectively conceived by clinical leads and leadership staff at Camhs, to lie to me, deceive me, misrepresent me and monitor me. This disclosure proves Wanda Reynolds attempt to deceive me, be dishonest with me and withhold information from me. This disclosure proves that Wanda Reynolds lied to me.

Wanda Reynolds stopped responding to my emails after this disclosure by Katie Rees. Eventually, Andy Ashby of PALS Sussex Partnership took over managing communication with me and brought about a hasty response to my complaints against Camhs, Sussex Partnership. I immediately referred my complaint to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman where it is currently awaiting a caseworker while PHSO deal with an 11 month backlog of cases following Covid 19.

13) OBFUSCATION/OBSTRUCTION I had made multiple requests for information from Wanda Reynolds regarding the meetings that were held by Camhs ‘clinical leads’ and ‘leadership staff’ around January and February 2022. I was making similar requests to Katie Rees at Information Governance Sussex Partnership up until the 5^th October 2022 when I received the following email

Good Afternoon Mark,

Please see attached copies of the documents Wanda discussed with you in your meeting.

Unfortunately due to the complex nature of your complaint and surrounding concerns, we will be unable to answer any further requests for information and you must go directly to the Information Commissioner's Office, they can be contacted on casework@ico.org.uk

Many thanks,

Katie Rees CISMP

Head of Information Governance, FOI & Records Management

Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

I complained to the ICO and had that complaint upheld in a reply from them received by me on the 3^rd March 2023. Since that ruling by the ICO on the 3^rd I have made multiple new requests for information to both Katie Rees’ office and to Andy Ashby at PALS Sussex Partnership. I have not heard anything from Katie Rees’ office at the time of writing these words despite the ICO ruling that

Request for your personal information

We understand that you also requested that the Trust provide you with access to your personal information that is held in your daughter’s clinical records. Currently, it is not clear whether the Trust have supplied you with all of the personal information they hold relating to you that you are entitled to receive.

In view of this, we have written to the Trust and have asked that they ensure that any personal information that identifies you is released to you as soon possible. We have asked that they write to you within the next 14 days to provide you with a date that this information will be released. We have advised that the Trust that if for any reason they are of the view that your information is exempt from disclosure, or that information has already been provided then they should explain this to you.

The 14 days notice actually expired Friday, 17^th March 2023. I have received NO communication from IG Sussex Partnership in response to the ICO ruling.

I made requests to Andy Ashby at PALS Sussex Partnership for information including the following extract from an email sent 13^th March 2023

‘4) Was Wanda Reynolds responsible for the executive decision to withhold information as reported by Katie Rees in the following email dated 5^th October 2023?’

I believe that Wanda Reynolds was managing Katie Rees and Information Governance Sussex Partnership ( the correspondence between Katie Rees and Camhs was exclusively with Wanda Reynolds until at least the 10^th August 2022 ( see email extract from Andy Ashby, 10^th August 2022 referred to above )) .

I also asked Andy Ashby to clarify. I have received no response from Andy Ashby at the time of writing these words.

‘I have forwarded updated requests for information to Byron Charlton at Information Governance Sussex Partnership including the following ‘Was Wanda Reynolds, general manager at Camhs, involved in the decision that led to you informing me that ‘Unfortunately due to the complex nature of your complaint and surrounding concerns, we will be unable to answer any further requests for information.’?’ You could save me considerable time and frustration by providing a prompt response to this question, Andy.’

I have received no response from Andy Ashby at the time of writing these words.

It is my strongly held conviction that Wanda Reynolds is STILL managing Katie Rees’ office. I will wait a further two weeks before requesting the Information Governance disclose ALL email communication between Wanda Reynolds and Katie Rees’ office right up to the date 31^st March 2023. I would ask you at Social Work England to also ask for ALL email communication between Wanda Reynolds and Katie Rees’ office right up to the date 31^st March 2023 to prove or disprove that Wanda Reynolds was or still is managing Katie Rees’ office.

14) MISREPRESENTATION I escalated my complaint against Camhs to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman. The PHSO’s advisement to me that they would be unable to assign a caseworker to my complaint for up to 11 months due to Covid 19 backlog. My continued investigation led me to both the British Association of Art Therapists and the Health and Care Professions Council, regulatory bodies that Camhs art therapist, Sally Mungall, is affiliated with. Advice offered by both of those regulatory bodies instructs those, like me, who have been the victim of potential malpractice, to contact the registrant directly to ask for explanation as to what has or might have gone wrong. I followed that advice and wrote directly to Sally Mungall first, to send her a copy of my formal complaint document largely out of professional courtesy, and then second, to actually ask for her help in understanding what had gone wrong. Sally Mungall responded by contacting Hampshire Police and I was visited at home during an early Sunday morning last September by a police officer and ‘cautioned’ as a suspect of ‘harassment’. My details are currently lodged on the Police National Computer under an ‘occurrence’ of ‘Stalking Harassment’. I have filed a complaint with Hampshire Police and my complaint is pending with the OPCC.

The above is context for the following;

Further disclosure of medical records held by Southern Health show that Wanda Reynolds sent an email to Vicky Long ( I have written the following, verbatim, from my medical records as I cannot copy and paste. I can offer my medical records to you later if requested )

From Wanda Reynolds

To Vicky Long 21^st September 2022 18.28

Hi Vicky, I hope you are well. I wanted to update you of an escalation that we have seen in Mr Stock’s behaviour this week. I am not sure whether he is open to one of your teams now. He did say in a recent communication that he was due to have an assessment today but we are not clear where this is. If he is not open to you perhaps you could forward to the correct person. Mr Stock over the weekend emailed the clinician ( SM ) on her personal email account. We don’t know how he got this, although it is possible that it is shown on SM’s private practice website account rather than a link to send a message. The email was long and described preparing a meal for SM and hoping that she would come, and his love for her. SM has spoken to the police and they will be speaking to Mr Stock within the next week and requesting he stop making contact with SM. We are anticipating that this might therefore see a further escalation in his behaviour related to his distress and perception of rejection. We are aware as you know that he has made past statements about ending his life and indeed went missing earlier this year for several days. It is for this reason we felt it was appropriate to share our concern and update with you. Please let me know if you need any further information or if you would like me to redirect this elsewhere.

Wanda

Wanda Reynolds

Wanda Reynolds email to Vicky Long completely misrepresents me. I have attached a copy of the actual letter sent to (SM), Sally Mungall ref ‘Dear Sally 4 post invitation’ for you to look at. You’ll note that the content of my ‘long’ letter was largely asking for help in understanding what had gone wrong. ( You’ll also note that there is an obvious romantic tone to the letter which should be acknowledged as the manifest emotional outpouring of unresolved transference within the therapeutic alliance between Sally Mungall, the therapist and myself, the patient. I’ll refer to this more explicitly on page 19.) This letter was sent in accordance with advice offered by the British Association of Art Therapists and the Health and Care Professions Council. Indeed, Section 8.1 of the HCPC Ethics Policy, under the title ‘The ethical framework within which our registrants must work’, states ‘You must be open and honest when something has gone wrong with the care, treatment or other services that you provide by: – informing service users or, where appropriate, their carers, that something has gone wrong;– apologising;– taking action to put matters right if possible; and– making sure that service users or, where appropriate, their carers, receive a full and prompt explanation of what has happened and any likely effects.

In her email to Vicky Long, Wanda Reynolds makes NO mention of the overwhelming and explicit intention behind my letter to Sally Mungall. Nowhere in her email to Vicky Long does she describe the length and detail of my enquiry for answers to my direct questions to Sally Mungall. Instead, Wanda Reynolds describes my attempt to contact Sally Mungall as an escalation of behaviour. What does Wanda Reynolds mean by escalation of behaviour? I believe that this is a poor use of language, especially when applied in the context of the full email sent by Wanda Reynolds. In the meantime I’ll draw attention to the following points

a) Wanda Reynolds writes ‘Mr Stock over the weekend emailed the clinician ( SM ) on her personal email account. We don’t know how he got this, although it is possible that it is shown on SM’s private practice website account rather than a link to send a message.’ Of course, I used Sally Mungall’s contact details advertised to the general public on her private practice webpage. I did not have to use subterfuge in order to obtain Sally Mungall’s contact details. Her contact details are in the public domain. Why does Wanda Reynold’s try and frame my ‘behaviour’ as potentially intrusive by making this comment, making it seem as though I am ‘stalking’ or ‘cyber-stalking’ Sally Mungall?

b) Why does Wanda Reynolds focus on the following ‘The email was long and described preparing a meal for SM and hoping that she would come, and his love for her.’ and not on the substantive and highly relevant part of the letter that asks Sally Mungall for help in understanding what went wrong? This focus misrepresents me and, indeed, frames me, exclusively as some kind of love sick teenager or, worse ( in keeping with the narrative already falsely established by ‘clinical leads’ and ‘leadership staff’ ) that I am some kind of ‘fixated’, ‘obsessed’, ‘stalker’ or ‘harasser’.

c) Wanda Reynold’s words ‘SM has spoken to the police and they will be speaking to Mr Stock within the next week and requesting he stop making contact with SM. We are anticipating that this might therefore see a further escalation in his behaviour related to his distress and perception of rejection.’ is inflammatory and incorrect. I categorically DO NOT have any perceptions of rejection. I was abandoned by Sally Mungall, by proxy and dishonestly. Rejection and abandonment are two entirely different concepts. Also, my ‘behaviour over the entire course of this issue has been exemplary. I’ll share what I once wrote to Wanda Reynolds in an email dated 9^th July 2022

‘You were all so very wrong about me. I never got angry, not with anyone. Nobody was at risk. I internalised ALL the negative feelings, absorbed all the disappointments and suffered the accusations and slurs in incredulous isolation. I was as polite and considerate as I was patient. I never sought to damage anything or anyone apart from myself. I never caused a fuss or bother. It was you, Wanda, along with all of those who attended that meeting that treated me like I was a monster, like something dirty and unclean that needed disinfecting. The really sad thing is that I think that Sally herself was persuaded to think I was a monster. Staff at the Bridge Centre perpetuated the idea, cajoled her and brow beat her into believing I was somehow dangerous. It’s evidenced in my medical records. It’s really all quite disgusting. Even during a mental health assessment I was being prodded and poked for an emotional reaction so that those behind the scenes could assess my liability in relation to Sally and her safety; when I should have been assessed for my own sake there were other agendas taking priority over mine. You have all done a really astounding job of diminishing me, making me feel worse about myself than I already felt. I was already entrenched with overwhelming self-loathing and self-disgust. You just added to that. And what did I do that was so wrong? I fell in love with somebody. The most simple yet pure, genuinely innocent and unashamedly romantic love. You and others at the Bridge Centre cynically mislabelled my tenacity as ‘fixation’, my passion as ‘obsession’ and my natural curiosity as ‘stalking’. I laid down my heart and you all took turns tramping over it with your jackbooted indifference. I’ll always Love Sally but I’ll always feel pain. I never even got to say goodbye to her. There was no closure. Just pain. I will never get over this. Never. I’m still trying to be the better person, trying hard to let go of bitterness, trying not to feel aggrieved, trying so very hard to move on but a huge part of me needs for you to know, all of you who were part of that dreadful decision to know, just how damaged I am and just how wretched I feel and just how broken I’ve become. So, no, your answers to my questions are not helpful. And no, I don’t expect any more answers from you Wanda. I’ll just have to sit on my hands and wait like I’ve always waited.’

The use of the words ‘escalation ( of Mr Stock’s ) behaviour’ now take on a very precise and deliberate meaning. Those words imply that there is an increase in the intensity or seriousness of the way I act, especially towards others. In context with Wanda Reynolds further writing ‘this might therefore see a further escalation in his behaviour related to his distress and perception of rejection.’ This frames me as being some kind of threat either to myself or others. It is the threat to others that Wanda Reynolds and staff at Camhs are obsessed with. My medical records disclosed by Southern Health show that Camhs have deliberately and cynically framed me as a risk to others. The evidence of my actual behaviour over the entirety of my involvement with Camhs demonstrably proves the opposite. I have NEVER been a risk to anyone other than myself. Wanda Reynolds is, instead, taking this opportunity with Vicky Long to further the narrative that I am some kind of ‘risk’ to others, which brings me onto the next point

15) MISREPRESENTATION My medical records held by Southern Health show that, for almost a year, I have been misrepresented as a ‘risk to others –obsessional’. That assessment of me has been informed entirely by information provided by Camhs. The decision to investigate my original complaints against Camhs and CMHT The Bridge Centre as a joint complaint was made by Wanda Reynolds in cooperation with Vicky Long. When responsibility for overseeing my complaint was passed over from Wanda Reynolds to Andy Ashby of PALS Sussex Partnership ( Camhs ) he decided to re separate and investigate the Camhs part only. The Head of Nursing at the Bridge Centre, Farayi Nyakubaya, took over responsibility for the CMHT part. Andy Ashby rapidly concluded his investigation and provided me with a very unsatisfactory response the result of which was that I forwarded my complaint to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman where it has been languishing, waiting for a caseworker to become available because of an 11 month backlog due to Covid 19. Farayi Nyakubaya adopted a completely opposite attitude and spent an accumulated 17 hours over 5 months meeting with me to resolve my complaints. Farayi’s attitude was one of compassion and contrition that ultimately resulted in commitment to improve the services provided by The Bridge Centre. Indeed, Ron Shields, the CO of Southern Health has taken particular interest and has appointed the associate director for Mid and North Hampshire to work with me to implement improvements to the service. During my my last meeting with Farayi on the 6th January 2023 it was agreed that I had been misrepresented throughout my medical records and that I was NEVER a risk to others and that action needed to be taken to amend the record. Before Farayi could amend the record he was informed by his own team to speak with Wanda Reynolds first. The following emails conclude his enquiries,

Email from Farayi Nyakubaya Mon 13/02/2023 12.28

Dear Mark

Please see correspondence below from Wanda as requested. Wanda is happy for me to share with you the email as you requested. Essentially she clarified that CAMHS does not think that you pose a risk to anyone from their perspective. She did not want you triggered by the word “obsession” which she used loosely (hence used it in quotes) to communicate what they thought to be your strong feelings for Sally.

Wanda: I am copying you in just for your information.

Kind regards

Farayi

From: REYNOLDS, Wanda (SPFT) Sent: 03 February 2023 11:49To: Nyakubaya, Farayi <F*******************************nhs.uk>Subject: RE: MS' risk to othersImportance: High

Hi Farayi,

I have now discussed your question with both Sally and the senior leads that were involved we all agreed the following:

· Sally consistently said that she was not worried about risk to herself but was worried about his risk to himself.

· Senior staff were concerned about the level of 'obsession' with the long letters and persistence in wanting to have a further appointment with Sally.

· Sally did feel uncomfortable when she received emails and letters at home.

· Mr Stock did not engage in a way that left any staff feeling that they were at immediate physical risk to themselves. As mentioned above the concern was more about we didn’t know what Mr Stock would do to manage his feelings. Evidence of the past year or so would indicate that Sally and staff are not at physical risk from him.

I hope this is helpful.

Kind Regards

Wanda

Wanda Reynolds

General Manager

Hampshire CAMHS

Tel

Mobile:

From: Nyakubaya, Farayi <********************************nhs.uk> Sent: 31 January 2023 15:39To: REYNOLDS, Wanda (SPFT) Subject: RE: MS' risk to others

Hi Wanda

Do you have a response for please. I need to close actions from this complaint please?

Kind regards

Farayi

Farayi Nyakubaya

Head of Nursing & AHPs for Mid & North Area - Community Mental Health Services

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

From: Nyakubaya, Farayi Sent: 25 January 2023 10:03To: wandaSubject: MS' risk to othersImportance: High

Morning Wanda

Thank you for taking my call yesterday. Sorry I failed to email straight after. Please could you check with Sally if she ever felt physically threatened or intimidated by Mark. Our staff have sometimes appraised Mark’s risk to others as significant and insinuated that Mark poses a stalking risk or a physical threat to Sally. He is disputing this; he accepts that he has had romantic feelings towards Sally and disclosed these but from his perspective he has not become obsessional, has never stalked her and would never do this, and has never threatened her. He stated that when he wrote to Sally he had been advised by the HPC or some professional body because he had engaged them after he felt so aggrieved by the abrupt ending and how he was then (unfairly to his mind) perceived. I have spoken to a colleague who first assessed Mark for CMHT and rated his risk to others as low, and she said she spoke to Sally at the time and Sally did not feel physically threatened by Mark; all her concerns were just the risk Mark posed to himself which she felt were exacerbated by her terminating of her therapeutic engagement with him.

Our view is that unless we hear from your team that you think he poses a risk to Sally and your basis, we will have to stop appraising him as posing a risk to Sally as from what I have gathered we do not have good clinical basis to continue appraising him as posing a physical risk to Sally or anyone else. If on the other hand Sally or your team believes that he poses a physical threat to Sally or anyone else we may have to get him assessed by a forensic specialist to understand and clarify this risk a bit more.

I am aware of his threats to sue organisations and report professionals to their bodies but I have seen these as prosocial ways of redressing grievances (whether such grievances are valid or not).

I hope that the above summary and our brief conversation yesterday outlines enough the context of my request to you which are: (i) a view from you on behalf of CAMHS (preferably having also spoken to Sally also) about whether you believe Mark poses a risk of physical harm to anyone including Sally and (ii) If you do please kindly outline the basis of your views so we can use this clinically to fairly assess his risk to others. We have not seen anything in his behaviour that he poses a physical threat to anyone, but possibly Sally purely based on what we thought came from your team but we may have assumed things that your service actually never told us. Many thanks

I take issue with the following extracts from Wanda Reynolds email to Farayi dated 3 February 2023 11.49

a) Senior staff were concerned about the level of 'obsession' with the long letters and persistence in wanting to have a further appointment with Sally.

This use of the word ‘obsession’ or any of its derivatives is especially troublesome. It is one of the words frequently used to describe me and my ‘behaviour’ throughout my medical records and were originally used by Camhs staff and then taken up with gusto by CMHT Bridge Centre staff, ubiquitously used in conjunction with similar words like ‘fixated’, ‘facinations’, ‘stalking’ etc. Those words are used by the police when investigating suspects. They are loaded words with seriously negative connotations and should not be used lazily or inappropriately. I have been misrepresented, in part, by the framing of my character as ‘obsessed’.

The truth of the matter is that I am the victim of clinical malpractice. I was abused by art therapist, Sally Mungall. The truth of the matter is that I have subsequently been abused by Camhs staff, most notably, Wanda Reynolds, who has decided to act with partiality. Wanda Reynolds bias towards protecting her professional reputation and the professional reputation of her colleagues has meant that she has needed to frame me as the villain. I have been framed as the problem.

My long letters to Sally Mungall and persistence in wanting to have my meeting with Sally Mungall reinstated was not borne out of ‘obsession’. It was borne out of tenacity. It was borne out of a dogged determination to uncover the facts. I knew from the outset that I was being deceived and later uncovered compelling and robust evidence of a covert plan to lie to me, monitor me and manipulate me. I later discovered evidence that proved Sally Mungall herself was a part author of those plans. That evidence was devastating to me. I had entered into the therapeutic relationship with Sally Mungall back in Sept 2021 completely trusting her, trusting in her professional status and her disarming and easy charm. I opened myself up to Sally Mungall in a way that I had never done with anyone else. I allowed myself to become completely vulnerable because I wanted to be of service to my daughter who was a patient also under Sally Mungall’s care. Sally Mungall herself, part way through the ‘parent work’ between Sept and Dec 2021, expressed concerns that she was being abusive to me. That didn’t stop her and her professional ambitions completely overwhelmed her professional duty to safeguard me. I experienced debilitating transference during the sessions with Sally Mungall and she was unable to contain my emotion or properly police the therapeutic boundaries. The attempt to engage me in intense psychotherapy has since been recognised by everyone, including Wanda Reynolds, as ill advised. The intergenerational trauma that Sally Mungall uncovered completely engulfed me and manifested in suicidal planning. The uncontained psychodrama was so chaotic that it contributed to an actual suicide attempt in April 2022. The termination of the sessions with Sally Mungall was too abrupt. The meeting I had scheduled with Sally Mungall for the 3^rd February 2022 was mutually agreed in recognition of the fact that I was still vulnerable.

I have since spent 34 sessions , to date, in open-ended psychotherapy with a new therapist. This new therapist is committed to ‘holding’ me for as long as it takes. Most of the sessions have been taken up with the trauma I have experienced, not only as a result of the inappropriate, intense psychotherapy, nor the abrupt ending but also the way I have been treated since both by Camhs and CMHT The Bridge Centre. It has been through much painful work with my new therapist that I have been able to even understand that I was abused and continue to be abused. I suffer daily with insurmountable suicidal ideation.

What I so desperately needed was answers to the deluge of questions that I had. I have been gripped by chaos and deep abiding depression ever since the termination of the therapeutic relationship with Sally Mungall. I asked, many times to have my meeting with Sally Mungall reinstated so that I might have an opportunity to ask some questions and, hopefully, find some semblance of closure and peace. I have even asked to sit in front of the ‘clinicians’ at Camhs, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke so as to ask them questions so that I might attempt to understand the rationale behind their decision making and the rationale behind their need to misconstrue my written words. But it hasn’t been enough for them to deny me. No. They have chosen to double down and misrepresent me as ‘obsessed’ and a risk to others. Wanda Reynolds was the general manager overseeing this strategy.

Wanda Reynolds communicated to Farayi Nyakubaya on the 3^rd February 2023 saying ‘She did not want you triggered by the word “obsession” which she used loosely (hence used it in quotes) to communicate what they thought to be your strong feelings for Sally.’ She used the word ‘obsession’ anyway.

It is appalling.

b) Sally did feel uncomfortable when she received emails and letters at home.

Sally feeling ‘uncomfortable’ led to a visit by Hampshire Police to my home during the early hours of a Sunday morning and the recording of an ‘occurrence’ in the Police National Computer database that identifies me as a ‘suspect’ of ‘Stalking and Harassment’. It is dishonest for Wanda Reynolds to write that Sally Mungall received emails and letters at home. My communication with Sally Mungall was directed through her private therapy practice and not actually at her home. The emails were sent using contact details on her private practice webpage and in the public domain while the document was sent specifically to ‘The Art Room’, Sally Mungall’s designated address for her private practice. By using the words ‘at home’, Wanda Reynolds frames my attempt to contact Sally Mungall as harassing Sally Mungall at her home and infringing boundaries. There were NO boundaries surrounding Sally Mungall’s private practice. Sally Mungall’s website promotes her therapy business without proviso or discrimination.

Wanda Reynolds was in direct communication with Sally Mungall as a result of my emails and letter/document circa 16^th to 18^th Sept 2022. Wanda Reynolds was also involved in managing the case as it presented itself throughout Jan and Feb 2022. Decisions to notify Hampshire Police during Jan and Feb 2022 and circa 19^th and 21^st Sept were overseen by Wanda Reynolds. Wanda Reynolds was the general manager overseeing this case from the outset. I would ask Social Work England to obtain ALL communication between Wanda Reynolds and Sally Mungall and other Camhs staff to determine the extent of Wanda Reynolds influence in decisions to contact Hampshire Police. The visit by Hampshire Police is one of the most significant factors contributing to my current negative mental health.

c) Mr Stock did not engage in a way that left any staff feeling that they were at immediate physical risk to themselves. As mentioned above the concern was more about we didn’t know what Mr Stock would do to manage his feelings. Evidence of the past year or so would indicate that Sally and staff are not at physical risk from him.

I take exception to the qualifying words ‘immediate’ and ‘physical’. I have NEVER been a risk to anyone apart from myself, immediately physical or otherwise. The use of the word ‘immediate’ is a framing device and is used to suggest that I am an eventual physical risk to staff. It should be accepted as a given that nobody is a risk to anyone, immediately or otherwise, without evidence to the contrary. So pervasive is the misrepresentation of me that Wanda Reynolds is still stuck in the mindset. Wanda Reynolds still believes or acts in such a way that suggests that she still believes or is deliberately and cynically falsely accusing me of being a physical risk to others or of risk that is not physical. I AM OF NO RISK TO ANYONE BUT MYSELF. END OF.

FURTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST WANDA REYNOLDS

16) INCOMPETENCE In her signed response to my complaint written by her on the 20^th July 2022, specifically

Wanda

5) What is the formal policy and where are the documented procedures and guidelines pertaining to CAMHS 'parent work'? Where are the empirical, multi varied studies into the ethics and efficacy of CAMHS parent work?

Wanda Reynolds replied

‘All CAMHS interventions are evidence based and/or evidence generating. We work within NICE guidelines, and the core principles and protocols as identified within a range of professional trainings and assessment and treatment frameworks. The efficacy of work with parents and carers to support an understanding of their child's presentation and recovery is well recognised within this, and through our learning from clinical and professional experience, service user participation and feedback, national and international developed and reviewed models of interventions, and extensive research and studies. These are documented throughout a range of professional journals, publications and literature including The British association of Counselling & Psychology, Journal of Child Psychotherapy, Family Therapy, Psychiatry, Nursing and many more.

There is not a specific formal policy within CAMHS regarding parent work but in addition to the above we endeavour to adhere to the governance and trust policy guidelines regarding safe and effective clinical practice.’

I have much time and effort trying to correlate any and all such ‘core principles and protocols’ throughout a wide range of training and treatment frameworks with actual working practice in and around ‘parent work’. I have also made exhaustive enquiry throughout NICE guidelines to see if and what specific guidelines have been adopted by Camhs in and around ‘parent work’. There is no such correlation. Indeed, Wanda Reynolds admission that there is no ‘specific formal policy within Camhs regarding parent work’ appears to be the appalling full stop to this conversation.

My case proves the need for a written formal policy of conduct, performance and ethics to protect parents, carers and guardians, especially in and around ‘parent work’. I am reminded of the relevant research that led me to the HCPC and its own standards of conduct found here

https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/standards-of-conduct-performance-and-ethics/

What better place to start in formulating a specific written formal policy of conduct, performance and ethics than the above? Indeed, it was my reading of the HCPC standards that encouraged me to contact Sally Mungall during September 2022. For example, had an item of protocol similar to ‘The Standards Part 8 Be Open When Things Go Wrong’ been faithfully applied then I would not have been made a suspect of ‘Stalking and Harassment’ by Hampshire Police and subsequently left with no alternative but to complain about Sally Mungall through a ‘fitness to practice’ order. Similarly, had an item of protocol been codified into policy along the lines of ‘The Standards Part 3 Work Within The Limits Of Your Knowledge And Skills’ then there would have been clear demarcation of the confines of working within the ‘parent work’.

And just where are the empirical, multivaried studies into the ethics and efficacy of Camhs parent work? In the absence of a written formal policy there is a need for absolute diligence on the behalf of management. All of this happened on Wanda Reynolds watch. Wanda Reynolds either failed to make a thorough forensic enquiry into what had gone wrong during my ‘parent work’ with Sally Mungall at the time she first became aware of it being an issue, or she understood exactly what had gone wrong and decided to adopt a partisan attitude and frame me as the problem rather than, accurately, accept me as the victim.

I had asked similar questions about Sally Mungall’s access to ‘supervision’. The main purpose of supervision is to ensure the efficacy of the therapist’s psychotherapy practice which, in turn, will enable a therapist to work towards the best possible psychotherapy practice for their clients. It is a necessary safeguard and yet Wanda Reynolds summary of Sally Mungall was

‘ Sally was suitably experienced and trained, and is registered with both the Health and Care Pressions Council (HCPC) and British Association of Art Therapists (BAAT). Sally has many years' experience working with young people and family's within CAMHS.’

I questioned this and asked for clarification to which Andy Ashby responded by stating

‘I can assure you that Sally is a suitably qualified and experienced art therapist who is provided with appropriate supervision from the lead Art Therapist and a group peer supervision. This supervision is in line Sally's professional registration and the Trust Policies. The supervisor is suitably qualified and experienced in working with transference concepts to support Sally. A clinical supervisory relationship will only be able to reflect on the aspects of work that are raised within the supervision time and the detail of all cases held on a staff members caseload may not be able to be discussed in depth within the time given.’

In other words, there isn’t a sufficiently robust measure in place within Camhs to safeguard parents, carers, guardians and maybe even child and adolescent patients. Supervision is only as good as supervision time will allow and is wholly dependent on it being raised by the therapist in the first place. That threshold of safeguarding is so low as to be more of a nuisance of tripping over than being a robust test of standards and performance.

All of this, again, on Wanda Reynolds watch.

And finally, for now

17) INCOMPETENCE This next issue is relevant to my daughter as much, if not more so, than to me and was first raised in my last meeting with Farayi Nyakubaya while going over my complaints against CMHT The Bridge Centre. Farayi told me that my daughter, Meg, should have been referred to The Bridge Centre at the time of her 17 and a half birthday which was the 10^th June 2021. She was not actually referred by Camhs until the 8^th March 2022, virtually 8 MONTHS LATER!

The following email thread details my efforts to understand why my daughter was not referred by Camhs to CMHT The Bridge Centre at the time of her 17 and a half birthday

From: Mark Stock <m*******************> Sent: 10 March 2023 11:51To: Stubbington, Gemma <G********************************nhs.uk>Subject: Meg Stock Patient ID ******* NHS Number ************

Dear Gemma,

I am writing to you with reference to my daughter, Meg Stock, who is currently a patient at the Bridge Centre and receiving therapeutic treatment from Principal Clinical Psychologist, Dr Serena Vizzini.

Prior to her referral to the Bridge Centre, Meg had been receiving therapeutic treatment at Camhs, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke to address mental health issues including OCD, Autism and trauma. Meg had been admitted into Camhs as an emergency ( after waiting for over two years after initial assessment by Camhs ) on the 5^th February 2021 and had her last session of therapy on the 28^th January 2022. She was referred by Camhs to the Adult Mental Health Team on the 8^th March 2022.

I made the following enquiry via PALS Sussex Partnership on the 6^th January 2023

Following a meeting earlier today with Farayi Nyakubaya, Head of Nursing at CMHT The Bridge Centre, held to bring the Southern Health portion of my complaint SP22020 to final resolution, I was informed that my daughter, Meg Stock, former patient at Camhs, Basingstoke, should have been referred to CMHT The Bridge Centre when she turned 17 and a half years old. Farayi told me that this was policy designed to provide a seamless and timely transition between Camhs and The Bridge Centre and where both teams of healthcare providers would be working together to provide Meg uninterrupted mental health care. According to this policy Meg should have been referred to The Bridge Centre on the 10^th June 2021 but was not actually handed over until 8^th March 2022. The delay in referral added considerable distress to both Meg and myself as her main carer and has significantly impacted psychological intervention by The Bridge Centre. Farayi has told me that Camhs failure to refer Meg at age 17 and a half was either a mistake or a clinical decision although he would not be drawn into speculating what clinical decision might have prevented a prompt referral. Please would you ask the appropriate clinicians at Camhs, Basingstoke to advise if the reason not to refer Meg to The Bridge Centre on the 10^th June 2021 was a mistake or to advise me on the precise explanation for the clinical decision if this was the case.

I had to wait until the 14^th February 2023 before I received the following explanation

Dear Mark

Further to your enquiry about the delay in CAMHS referring Meg to Adult Services, I have been informed that the clinical decision behind this was a desire for CAMHS to provide the therapeutic intervention to Meg prior to her 18^th birthday. There is an acknowledgement this treatment was delayed and did not commence until just prior to her turning 18. There was hope that the therapeutic interventions may have negated the need for Meg to be referred to Adult Services and so referral was delayed until the outcome was known and future care needs identified.

Kind regards

Andy

Andy Ashby

Lead Nurse

This explanation leaves me incredulous. My daughter should have been referred to Adult Services on the 10^th June 2021 when she turned 17 and a half years old. When I brought Meg into Camhs, Bramblys Drive as an emergency on the 5^th February 2021 she was already suffering so badly from the symptoms of her mental health issues that I expected her to be signposted to mental health residential treatment. She was in so much distress that she was dysfunctional, self-harming and resorting to violence towards me, her father and main carer. She was house bound and virtually bed bound, incontinent, socially isolated and overwhelmed by excessive OCD rituals that meant she was neglecting her personal hygiene ( she had not washed, showered or bathed or washed her hair for over three months nor brushed her teeth for weeks on end ). I was burned out as a carer and desperate and suicidal. Meg was allocated a Camhs therapist, Mark Birbeck following an emergency mental health assessment on the 5^th February 2021 and I met with him alone prior to the 10^th June 2021 to express my desperation and suggestion that my daughter be referred to specialist care but his professional judgement was that he continue to work with Meg. There were times when Meg was unable to leave the house to attend therapy sessions and on a couple of occasions I met with Mark Birbeck inher stead to voice my scepticism over his judgement. It was blatantly obvious to me throughout the entirety of 2021 that Mark Birbeck was not going to be able to treat Meg’s mental health issues. He admitted to me that he was going to find it difficult to treat Meg because she had been admitted into the service far too late and was going to be discharged shortly after her 18^th birthday. Mark Birbeck told me that he had managed to extend treatment by a further month or so but still had less than one calendar year in which to treat her. When Meg and I attended a ‘review’ with Mark Birbeck and Sally Mungall ( Camhs art therapist and clinical lead (?) in my daughters case ) I was informed that I needed to resume as main carer for my daughter ‘indefinately’ and that I should expect Adult Services to be unhelpful and difficult to work with. I was absolutely suicidal at that news and tried to convey my distress as best I could without upsetting my daughter. Both my daughter and I were made subject to Safeguarding orders but were essentially left out in the cold while clinicians at the Bridge Centre failed to meet their responsibilities in a timely fashion. My daughter’s mental health did not improve and was only made tolerable because she was heavily sedated. I became so overwhelmed that I made an attempt to take my own life on the 27^th April 2022.

It was Farayi Nyakabaya who informed me on the 6^th January 2023 that Meg should have been referred to CMHT the Bridge Centre on her 17 and a half birthday, the 10^th June 2021. Camhs, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke delayed referral by 8 months! If Camhs had referred Meg to CMHT 8 months earlier then much distress endured by Meg would have been averted. If my daughter had been referred to CMHT 8 months earlier then I might not have made a suicide attempt. It is only by chance that I was intervened by Dorset Police and detained under section 136 of the Mental Health ACT and did not complete suicide.

I note that it took just over 6 months between Meg’s referral to CMHT on the 8 March 2022 and her psychology assessment with Serena on the 27^th September 2022 and just over 3 months between that psychology assessment and commencement of actual therapy with Serena on the 2^nd January 2023 which, added together makes around 9 to 10 months. Those 9 to 10 months are very close to the 8 months lost to delay by Camhs. If Camhs had referred Meg to CMHT on time 8 months earlier then she would have likely been receiving therapy long before my suicide attempt.

I am determined to take this matter further and bring those clinicians at Camhs who were responsible for the decision not to refer my daughter, Meg, to CMHT on the 10^th June 2021 to account. I would like to take this opportunity to invite yourself and others at Meadows, the Bridge Centre, including Serena Vizzini, to offer opinion or comment on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Mark

I spoke to Gemma Stubbington by telephone on the 14^th March 2023 and sent the following email to her on the 15^th March 2023

From: Mark Stock <******************k> Sent: 15 March 2023 10:02To: Stubbington, Gemma <G*************************************k>Subject: RE: Todays meeting

Good Morning Gemma,

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me yesterday.

I have been reflecting on our conversation and wanted clarification on a few of the points raised as it would help me in my ongoing investigations, especially with regards the failure by Camhs to refer my daughter to Adult Services in accordance with NICE guidelines. I realise that you are very busy in your new role but I would be grateful if you would answer the following questions for me?

You made reference to a scheduled meeting next week (?)with Camhs leadership. Would you confirm that the meeting is with Jennifer Gillies?
Would you confirm Jennifer Gillies title within Camhs? I think I recognise the name but I haven’t, as yet, been able to trace her details in my extensive communication with Camhs or the wider Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust.
Would you confirm that the meeting with Jennifer Gillies is being convened in order to set up working policy and protocol into transition from Camhs to Adult Services?
Would you confirm that Wanda Reynolds, general manager of Camhs, is or is not already involved or will be appraised of this meeting?
Was this meeting initiated by you and/or others at the Bridge Centre or was it initiated by Camhs leadership? It is no coincidence that there is a scheduled meeting to address this issue so soon after I raised my daughter’s specific case, is it?
Will the policies and protocols be published in the public domain once they are established by you and Jennifer Gillies and will I be able to access them directly through CMHT The Bridge Centre or through FOI access?

I made mention during yesterday’s conversation of the NICE guideline ( NG43 ) ‘Transition from children’s to adult’s services for young people using health or social services’, published 24^th February 2016. Camhs failed my daughter, Meg Stock, on virtually every point throughout 17 pages of recommendations. This NICE document would provide an effective resource in your discussions.

Kind regards,

Mark

I have included the above email dated 15^th March 2023 to draw attention to NICE guideline ( NG34 ) ‘Transition from children’s to adult’s services for young people using health or social services’. NG34 is a 35 page document covering 17 pages of guidelines. Camhs, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke failed to follow or take into account the overwhelming majority of those guidelines.

Gemma Stubbington is newly appointed in her position as Head of Clinical Services overseeing ‘Meadows’ team at CMHT The Bridge Centre. One of her first tasks is to meet with Jennifer Gillies of Camhs to set out protocol and policy for transition from children’s to adult’s services. She has informed me that

From: Stubbington, Gemma [mailto:G*************************************k] Sent: 19 March 2023 17:13To: Mark StockSubject: RE: Todays meeting

Dear Mark

Thankyou for your email.

Jenny is the CAMHS transition link worker.

Kind regards

Gemma

Gemma Stubbington

Head of Clinical Services

Mid & North Hampshire Mental Health Services

Gemma followed up by email dated 20^th March 2023 with this confirmation

Dear Mark

I am sure Jenny will update her manager Wanda on our meeting.

Gemma followed up by email dated 20^th March 2023 with this confirmation

Kind regards

Gemma

So, Wanda Reynolds is the manager with oversight on protocol and policy for transition from children’s to adult’s services. Evidence suggests that there is currently insufficient protocol and policy for transition from Camhs and CMHT The Bridge Centre. Gemma Stubbington has recognised this failing and is taking proactive measures to remedy the situation. Wanda Reynolds was the general manager of Camhs before, during and after my daughter’s time as a patient at Camhs. She failed my daughter and was responsible for significant distress and delay in delivering appropriate psychotherapy. It seems all but certain that my attempt to take my own life on the 27^th April 2022 would have been averted had my daughter been referred to CMHT The Bridge Centre on the 10^th June 2021 at the time of her 17 and a half birthday.

Mark Stock

20^th March 2023

ADDENDUM made on the 2^nd April 2023.

18) INCOMPETENCE I refer you to the ‘WANDA REYNOLDS ‘fitness to practice’ covering letter’ and the following words

‘Since compiling the document ‘WANDA REYNOLDS ‘fitness to practice’’ I have gathered evidence to support an additional concern which I will address as ‘5.- The social worker failed to ensure that comprehensive policy and protocol was in place for the transition from Children’s Services to Adult Services during the time that my daughter was a patient at Camhs, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke.’ I have entered an addendum to my document ‘WANDA REYNOLDS ‘fitness to practice’’ that gives a brief summary of this concern. I have also attached a copy of a complaint sent to the Association of Child Psychotherapists to provide you a more detailed account of my concerns around this additional issue.’

I have made complaints against clinical staff at Camhs, Bramblys Drive, Basingstoke that address the failure to refer my daughter, Meg Stock, to Adult Services at the time of her 17 and a half birthday in accordance with guidelines set out in the NICE document NG43. I have attached a copy of one of those complaints ( both are identical in wording ) titled ‘ACP Complaint Mark Birbeck ( Camhs ) 4853 for your information. The point of including this is that Wanda Reynolds is the general manager overseeing policy and provision of transition of young people from Camhs to Adult Services. Gemma Stubbington, newly appointed Head of Clinical Services at CMHT the Bridge Centre confirmed this to me via email on the 20^th March 2023

Dear Mark

I am sure Jenny will update her manager Wanda on our meeting.

Kind regards

Gemma

LIST OF GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

The consequences of the failures by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, experienced by Meg Stock and me, Mark Stock, her single dad and carer.

1) Prevented timely access to therapy causing extreme psychological distress.

2) Prevented timely access to further therapy causing extreme psychological distress. Denied my daughter and me the opportunity make informed decisions on the continuation of treatment as set out in the NHS Constitution.

3) Caused extreme long-term psychological damage to me.

4) Caused extreme long-term psychological damage to me.

5) Caused extreme long-term psychological damage to me.

6) Caused reputational damaged to me that negatively influenced risk assessment and decision-making by clinicians working CMHT The Bridge Centre and ultimately leading to false allegations taken up by Hampshire Constabulary.

7) Caused reputational damage to me ultimately leading to false allegations taken up by Hampshire Constabulary.

8) Caused reputational damaged to me that negatively influenced risk assessment and decision-making by clinicians working CMHT The Bridge Centre and ultimately leading to false allegations taken up by Hampshire Constabulary.

9) Caused extreme long-term psychological damage to me that undermined my trust in psychotherapy and psychotherapists. This undermining of trust has significantly interfered with the psychotherapy I received following the damage done by Sally Mungall.

10) Undermined my trust in the PALS complaint process. Undermined my trust in the Access to Records process.

11) Undermined my trust in the ‘supervision’ of therapists protocol.

12) Undermined my trust in the efficiency, efficacy and rationale of CAMHS ‘Parent Work’.

13) Caused me deep anxiety and mistrust around the policies and procedures that should safeguard parents, guardians and carers of children and adolescents in their charge. Caused me deep anxiety to learn that there are no codified safeguarding precautions in place within CAMHS.

14) Caused me extreme psychological damage and undermined my trust in psychotherapy and psychotherapists.

15) Undermined my trust in the PALS compliant process. Same for subsections a) to g).

16) Caused reputational damaged to me that negatively influenced risk assessment and decision-making by clinicians working CMHT The Bridge Centre and ultimately leading to false allegations taken up by Hampshire Constabulary. Same for subsections 1) to 17)

17) Caused extreme long-term psychological damage as I continue to speculate on what was said about me during a safeguarding meeting that was convened specifically about me. Undermined my trust in the Access to Records process.

18) Undermined my trust in the Access to Records process. Caused unresolved feelings of injustice at the unchallenged corruption. Those involved in decisions to withhold information were the same clinicians and leadership staff that I was trying to hold to account.

19) Undermined my trust in the Access to Records process.

20) Undermined my trust in the Access to Records process.

21) Caused reputational damaged to me that negatively influenced risk assessment and decision-making by clinicians working CMHT The Bridge Centre and ultimately leading to false allegations taken up by Hampshire Constabulary.

22) Caused my daughter extreme long-term psychological damage through incompetent treatment. Prevented timely access to further therapy causing further extreme psychological distress. Denied my daughter and me the opportunity make informed decisions on the continuation of treatment as set out in the NHS Constitution. Caused me further distress by invalidating me as a parent and carer

23) Subsets of complaints found on pages 5, 10 and 24 have variously between them caused iterations of the above. If you require me to cross-reference each subset of complaints with the ‘consequences of failures by the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, experienced by Meg Stock and me, Mark Stock, her single dad and carer then please ask and I will provide the information.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Stock

17^th January, 2025

Second Account

‘Record-breaking year for PHSO

By Della Reynolds on July 27, 2026

Published here with permission.

On the 14th July, PHSO released its first annual report with Paula Sussex at the helm. It has indeed been a record-breaking year for the Ombudsman.

In the Foreword (p8/9) we can see Ms Sussex in a picture reminiscent of a posed school photograph. One hand holding a pen (industrious), while the other rests on an important document. She is pondering how to deal with a “significant increase in complaints”.

Sussex uses the foreword to remind us that her mission is to “increase our impact”

Published with permission from Della Reynolds.

So, how has she done? Well, in 2025/26, PHSO decided 9.8% more complaints than in 2024/25 and accepted 31% more complaints for primary investigation. (p39) So far so good.

But only detailed investigations can lead to a decision to uphold and unfortunately, these decreased by 8.17%.

Not only were there fewer detailed investigations, but these led to fewer upholds (see Failings or injustice identified, with recommendations made), down by 15.4%.

To summarise, more people made complaints that met the remit for investigation (+ 3,655 or +9.8%), but fewer cases were given a detailed investigation (-59 or -8.17%) and fewer complaints were upheld (-84 or -15.4%). Just how this qualifies as successfully increasing the impact of the Ombudsman is anyone’s guess.

PHSO has been on a continual downward trajectory since Rob Behrens took office in 2017, and Ms Sussex appears to be following his lead. Barely 2% of all complaints receive a full investigation and in 2025/26 just 1.1% received any form of uphold (this data includes partial upholds).

I wonder if anyone in senior management ever mentions the low uphold rate as a factor in the ‘systemic’ rise in complaints? I doubt it.

As more people complain and even more people get turned away with nothing, soon everyone will know how useless this government quango really is. Oh, I nearly forgot. PHSO did manage to break another record in 2025/26. They managed to spend £51.9 million upholding 461 complaints. That’s approximately £113,000 per upheld case. But of course Ms Sussex would argue that PHSO do a lot more than just uphold complaints. They train public sector staff and write important reports such as “Improving conversations in end of life care”. Nothing usually happens as a consequence of such reports landing on the desks of government ministers, but no matter. It gives everyone something to do.

It’s not easy for Ms Sussex to carve out her niche when Behrens has already crafted a ‘successful’ process of disposing of complaints and received a knighthood for it. So how about a rebranding exercise? (p9)

As a core part of building understanding ofour role and mission, this year also marked animportant step in the evolution of our identity,as we prepare to change our name to thePublic Service Ombudsman. Built on researchand testing with the public and our colleagues,our new name will better reflect what we doand help more people find and use our service.

Have no fear, the rebranded Public Service Ombudsman (PSO = please sod off) will continue to protect public services from public accountability. It will probably cost a few £M, (hence the predicted rise in expenditure for 26/27) as private consultants and graphic designers are called in and Ms Sussex will no doubt take great care over the choice of colours for the new logo. What was that saying about Rome burning?’

Mark Stock

3^rd August 2026'

trust issues

LATEST ISSUES 6th August, 2026

Recent Posts

Comments