Summary: Ms B complained the Council recorded inaccurate information about her late brother, Mr C, when he was assessed under the Mental Health Act. Ms B also complained the Council shared this incorrect information with her, meaning she was not aware of the reasons he was admitted to hospital. Ms B said this caused her and Mr C’s family great distress and meant Mr C did not get the care and treatment he needed. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council because it is unlikely we could add to the response she has already received from the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council) gave her incorrect information about the reasons for her brother, Mr C’s, admission to hospital under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. She said the Council relied on copied and pasted information from a previous hospital admission several years earlier.
2. Ms B said using out of date information affected Mr C’s care while he was in hospital and meant he was wrongly discharged. Ms B also said being given inaccurate information about why Mr C was admitted to hospital caused her and Mr C’s family great distress.
3. As an outcome of her complaint, Ms B would like acknowledgement that she should have been given the correct reasons for Mr C’s admission, and that Mr C was wrongly discharged from hospital. Ms B also wants services to improve to prevent this happening to anyone else.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms B in writing and over the telephone, and information from the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. Ms B had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation

8. Under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), when someone has a mental disorder and is putting their safety or someone else’s at risk they can be detained in hospital against their wishes. This is sometimes known as ‘being sectioned’. Usually, three professionals need to agree that the person needs to be detained in hospital. These include an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) and usually (but not always) two doctors who have been specially approved to carry out Mental Health Act assessments (Section 12 doctors). 
9. The AMHP is responsible for deciding whether to go ahead with the application to detain the person and for telling the person. They are also responsible for providing information about the proposed detention to the person’s Nearest Relative. Any admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act should be in the best interests of the person and they should not be detained if there is a less restrictive alternative. Local authorities are responsible for the actions of AMHPs.  
10. The purpose of detention under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is for assessment of a patient’s mental health and to provide any treatment they might need. Patients can be detained under section 2 for a maximum of 28 days.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Ms B’s brother, Mr C, was referred for a Mental Health Act assessment. The assessment involved an AMHP, working on behalf of the Council, and two doctors. The assessment said Mr C should be detained in hospital under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act.
12. A bed became available for Mr C two days later. The AMHP contacted Ms B by telephone to tell her of this, and Mr C was admitted to hospital.
13. Ms B complained to the Council. She said that during the Mental Health Act assessment, the AMHP relied on copied and pasted information from Mr C’s previous hospital admission several years previously. She said the AMHP had also shared this incorrect information with her over the telephone on the day of the assessment. Ms B said she realised some of the information was wrong, as the person she spoke to said Ms B had accompanied Mr C to hospital. However, Ms B said this was not the case. Ms B explained it was not until after Mr C sadly died, that she became aware of the reasons he had been admitted to hospital. Ms B said she should have been told of these at the time.
14. The Council responded to Ms B’s complaint. It said the AMHP had not made the telephone call Ms B complained about on the day of Mr C’s assessment. The Council said the AMHP had spoken to Ms B, but this was two days later when a bed was found for Mr C and he was admitted to hospital. The Council said someone from another organisation had made the call on the day of the assessment.
15. Ms B was dissatisfied with this response and made a further complaint. She said she had been told the first call had been from the AMHP. She said the Mental Health Act assessment had involved the AMHP and included incorrect information, and therefore the Council was at fault. Ms B also said the Council had relied on incorrect information in its response to her complaint.
16. The Council carried out a further investigation of Ms B’s complaint. The Council said it recognised Ms B had previously been told the call on the day of the assessment was from the AMHP. However, the Council said the AMHP records did not refer to a call on that day. The Council said it did not consider it had provided Ms B with incorrect information.
17. Ms B did not agree with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.
18. Based on the available information, including the AMHP referral and assessment documents, the Council’s response appears to be based on the records. The available AMHP records do not refer to a call from the AMHP to Ms B on the day of Mr C’s assessment. The records say the AMHP called Ms B on the day Mr C was admitted to hospital, two days later. This was set out in the Council’s response to Ms B. The Council record of the call on the day says Ms B was informed a bed had been identified for Mr C and that she was provided with the details.
19. I recognise Ms B said that the call from the AMHP also gave her incorrect information relating to Mr C’s previous hospital admission, and that this caused her great distress. It is unlikely we would be able to add to the Council’s response regarding this telephone call to Ms B were we to investigate her complaint. The Council’s response appears to be based on the available AMHP records, and these do not provide any additional detail of what information was given to Ms B during this call. The Council’s response states it spoke with the AMHP as part of its investigation, and that the information given over the telephone was about Mr C’s transfer to hospital.
20. Therefore, it is unlikely an investigation of Ms B’s complaint about the Council could add any further explanation for Ms B about the information the Council gave to her.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything further for Ms B to the response she has already received from the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman