London Borough of Camden (18 019 682)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Miss T’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint about entitlement to aftercare under s117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This is because the Council has now agreed to investigate Miss T’s complaint. This remedies the injustice caused to Miss T by the Council’s decision not to investigate these matters.
The complaint
- Miss T complained to the Ombudsmen about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint about entitlement to aftercare under s117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The Ombudsmen’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully.
- We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our consideration and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information Miss T provided in writing and by phone, and documents and information provided by the Council.
What I found
Section 117 Aftercare – definition
- Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 imposes a duty on health and social services to meet the health/social care needs arising from or related to a person’s mental disorder. It applies to patients who have been detained under specific sections of the Mental Health Act such as section 3 and section 37. Aftercare services provided in relation to the person’s mental disorder under section 117 cannot be charged for. This is known as section 117 aftercare.
What happened
- Miss T became eligible for section 117 aftercare in 2004. In 2013 Miss T was detained under section 37 of the Mental Health Act, before she was discharged in April 2013 to a hostel.
- Miss T said a Council social worker was involved in her discharge from hospital to a hostel in 2013. She said the social worker told her she would have to pay half the rent at the hostel and the Council would pay the other half. Miss T said she started paying rent of around £330 per month from her savings, and by 2017 this had increased to approximately £530 per month. She also paid approximately £50 per month for utilities. She moved out of the hostel in 2017. Miss T told us the Council did not tell her anything about the basis for the split rent payment and she received nothing in writing about this.
- Miss T told us that in 2017 and 2018 she started attending a peer group and found out about section 117 aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983. Miss T said she had not been told before that she might be entitled to section 117 aftercare. Miss T said she decided to look into this more, and in 2019 the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman told her she should make a complaint to the Council.
- Miss T complained to the Council in writing on 13 March 2019. The Council replied the next day, that:
- Her complaint was out of time and she had not provided good reasons for the delay in making the complaint
- Housing Benefit would have made an assessment of how much she had to pay towards her rent, and she could have disputed this with Housing Benefit at the time
- Miss T complained to the Ombudsmen that the Council would not look into her complaint.
- We spoke with Miss T to discuss the reasons for the delay in bringing her complaint. We also discussed this with the Council, and made enquiries with the Council about Miss T’s section 117 aftercare status.
- The Council has now confirmed that Miss T is entitled to section 117 aftercare, and that there is no evidence Miss T was ever told she was under section 117.
- The Council has now agreed to investigate Miss T’s complaint, about whether her rent at the hostel between 2013 and 2017 should have been fully paid for under section 117 aftercare.
Decision
- The Ombudsmen will not investigate Miss T’s complaint. This is because the Council has now agreed to investigate the complaint and provide a response to Miss T. This remedies the injustice caused to Miss T by the Council’s decision not to investigate these matters.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman