Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to his mental health facility admission. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to his mental health facility admission under the Mental Health Act 1983. The matter caused him distress. He wants the Council to take disciplinary action against the staff involved with the assessments and decision and to provide him with a financial remedy.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said the Council carried out several mental health act assessments with him. He said the professionals who conducted the assessments were rude and unprofessional. He said the assessments were based on false information which led him to be admitted into a mental health facility.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:
• informed Mr X it had spoken with the professionals involved with assessing Mr X’s mental health needs. It said there was no evidence the professionals were rude and unprofessional towards him;
• said it was satisfied that a mental health facility was the most appropriate environment to meet Mr X’s mental health needs. It said this was for the safety of Mr X and others around him; and
• explained the decision to detain Mr X in a mental health facility was made in line with the Mental Health Act 1983 and recommended by two medical doctors. The Council also had a warrant under the Act issued by the courts to take such action.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. The Council investigated Mr X's concerns and found no evidence the professionals acted rude and unprofessional. It also explained the decision to detain Mr X was made in line with the statutory process under the Mental Health Act 1983. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the assessments and the decision however, we cannot question the professional judgement of qualified practitioners where there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process.
8. Subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. In any case, it is not in our role to recommend organisations to take disciplinary action against individuals.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman