Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and an approved mental health professional, which resulted in the complainant’s admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find significant failings by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the actions of Leeds City Council (the Council) in December 2020. She complains about a social worker’s actions in raising concerns about Ms X’s mental health with the crisis resolution intensive support service (CRISS).
2. Ms X also complains about the actions of an approved mental health practitioner (AMHP) during an assessment under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and the decision to detain her.
3. Ms X says because of the Council’s actions, her and her children have been left traumatised and she has lost trust in health and social care services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. The Ombudsmen cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision statement and I considered her comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

Relevant legislation and guidance

9. Under 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. This is sometimes known as ‘being sectioned’. Usually three professionals need to agree that the person needs to be detained in hospital. These are either an AMHP or the nearest relative, plus a doctor who has been specially approved in MHA detentions and another doctor. The AMHP is responsible for deciding whether to go ahead with the application to detain the person and for telling the person and their nearest relative about this. Admission should be in the best interests of the person and they should not be detained if there is a less restrictive alternative.
10. The MHA Code of Practice (2015) provide directions and guidance about how professionals should assess people before applying to detain them under the MHA.
11. The Ombudsmen cannot make or remake professional judgements about whether detention under the MHA is right. The LGSCO’s role is to consider if the AMHP followed the steps set out in the MHA and the associated Code of Practice. Where an AMHP has followed process, we would not question the judgements they made at the end of it.

Brief background

12. In December 2020 a social worker with Children’s services at the Council had concerns about Ms X’s mental health. The social worker contacted CRISS for advice. A doctor and AMHP from CRISS agreed to a joint visit to Ms X’s home later that day to assess her mental health. The doctor discussed various options for support but Ms X did not agree that she needed help. The doctor and AMHP arranged for a further opinion.
13. A second doctor and an AMHP visited Ms X two days later. They assessed Ms X again under the MHA and decided she should admitted to hospital under section 2 of the MHA. The admission did not happen straight away because of a lack of beds, but Ms X was admitted to hospital a couple of days later.
14. Ms X appealed to a mental health tribunal about her detention. The tribunal upheld the decision to detain her. Ms X remained an inpatient until mid‑January 2021.

Findings

15. The social worker had concerns about Ms X’s mental health. Where a social worker has concerns about someone’s mental health, we are unlikely to find fault for them seeking advice from the appropriate professionals.
16. The CRISS the decided to visit and assess Mr X under the MHA. In terms of the MHA assessment, we cannot consider the decision making by the doctors who were acting under powers provided to them as an individual. We can consider whether the AMHP followed the correct process. The evidence suggests the AMHP completed the relevant and necessary steps before completing the assessment. This included taking account of medical recommendations from two doctors. The decision was also upheld at tribunal, which indicates the decision to admit Ms X to hospital under the MHA was based on sound evidence. I therefore consider it is unlikely we would find significant failings in the process the AMHP followed.

Back to top

Decision

17. My view is we should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman will find fault in relation to the actions by the social worker or the AMHP.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman