Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in 2020. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about a meeting he attended in June 2020 which he believed to be an outpatients appointment. Mr B says he was not aware it was a Mental Health Assessment, and feels it was not a fair view of his situation and history. Mr B says he has only recently had access to the report which contains inaccurate and irrelevant information about him. Mr B says the purpose of the meeting was to detain him and says the meeting was illegal. Although the outcome of the meeting was that he was not detained, Mr B wants the Council to recognise the meeting should not have taken place and apologise to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) report clearly explained the purpose of the assessment which is a legal requirement. It says this was explained to Mr B at the meeting and was sorry to hear he did not recall it. We could not say what was said at the meeting when we were not there and could not make a different finding on this point even if we investigated.
6. Mr B is unhappy with the way the AMPH completed the assessment, who they contacted and typographical errors in the report. The Council says AMHP researched Mr B’s electronic records and considered a risk assessment from June 2007. The AMHP said they contacted relevant people involved in Mr B’s care and the report says it asked Mr B if he wanted his family to be contacted. It says Mr B did not provide any contact details for relatives and advised they should be left out of the conversation. The Council confirmed no face-to-face conversations took place. It apologised Mr B was referred to as a she in the report and explained this was an error.
7. The Council apologised for any lack of clarity and for the distress caused. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation is not warranted by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman