Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered the need for a Mental Health Act assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault with how it decided not to complete an assessment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Miss Y about Sheffield City Council (the Council). He considers the Council’s Approved Mental Health Practitioner (AMHP) service spoke to Miss Y in October 2023, it:
• failed to consider relevant information; and
• did not take satisfactory action by arranging a Mental Health Act assessment.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide 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. Mr X spoke to an AMHP in October 2023 seeking support about Miss Y’s mental health. Mr X wanted the AMHP to arrange a Mental Health Assessment for Miss Y. Mr X felt the AMHP relied too heavily on records in deciding not to complete a Mental Health Assessment.
6. Under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 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 for assessment. Usually, three professionals need to agree the person needs to be detained in hospital. These include an AMHP and usually two doctors who have been specially approved to carry out Mental Health Act assessments. 
7. Part of the AMHP’s role is to decide 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 MHA 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.  
8. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint recognised Miss Y needed support for her mental health. It explained that during the discussion with Mr X, the AMHP recorded that Miss Y was willing to accept an admission to hospital. This meant Miss Y did not need assessment under the MHA. The Council’s response accepted AMHPs should consider different information when considering a MHA assessment. However, for Miss Y’s case this was not relevant because she did not need admitting to hospital against her will.
9. From the information I have seen, the Council appears to have followed relevant MHA guidance in considering a Mental Health Assessment. As Miss Y was willing to go into to hospital voluntarily, consideration for compulsory admission was not appropriate. There was therefore a limited role for the AMHP in this case and no indications of fault in how the Council reached this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there are no indications of fault by the Council with how it considered the need for a MHA assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman