Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply for warrant under the terms of the
Mental Health Act 1983. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council applied for a section 135 warrant under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983 when it did not have grounds to do so. Mr B said the warrant was executed under false pretences as the information provided to obtain it was false. Mr B also complains the Council should not have allowed an officer he had complained about to attend his home when the warrant was executed. He says he experienced distress, and he wants the Council to acknowledge this and apologise.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) means allows the police and health professionals to legally enter a person’s home. The police can take them to a place of safety even if the person does not want to go. The police must have a warrant from the magistrate's court allowing them to enter the person’s home (s135 warrant). An approved mental health professional (AMHP) must make the application for the warrant. The police must be accompanied by an AMHP.
6. Mr B lives in the community and receives mental health support from community mental health team via the Home Treatment Team (HTT). He complained to the Council about a s135 warrant it had applied which led to the police and an AMHP coming to his house in December 2024 to take him to hospital so his mental health could be assessed.
7. Mr B complained the AMHP was not the best person to come to his home when the warrant was executed as he had made a previous complaint about them. He felt the Council had insufficient grounds to apply for the warrant as the information used was false.
8. The Council replied to Mr B’s complaint and said it had received a request from the HTT for an AMHP to complete an MHA assessment. It said the request contained information to suggest police assistance was needed. It said the correct procedure was to request a s135 warrant from a Justice of the Peace or a Judge. It confirmed the decision to issue the warrant was for the JP or Judge so it could not comment further.
9. The Council confirmed the name of the AMHP who had completed the application for the warrant even though Mr B had never met this officer before. It said the AMHP who attended with the police was suitably qualified to carry out their duties despite the previous complaint Mr B had made about them. The Council acknowledged Mr B’s concerns and the distress he said he had experienced. It said it had followed the law and its procedures when applying for the warrant so it could not provide assurances it would not do so again in future as Mr B had requested.
10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council considered information it had received from the HTT as part of its decision to apply for the warrant. There is not enough evidence to show there is fault in its decision. The Council acknowledged Mr B may have experienced distress due to the process but did not accept this was because of any fault in its processes.
11. The decision to issue the warrant was made by the Justice of the Peace or a Judge. This is not something we can investigate. The police executed the warrant so this is not an administrative function of the Council we can investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman