Summary: There was a service failure in the provision of the section 117 aftercare and some fault in the way the Council decided to communicate with Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, offer him a further meeting and has agreed to communicate via Mr B’s representative if Mr B agrees.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council has not provided appropriate section 117 aftercare, its communication with him has been poor and the Council refused to transfer his care package to a different council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have only investigated the complaint relating to Mr B’s section 117 aftercare support provided by Worcestershire County Council. I have not considered any complaint about Mr B's housing nor have I investigated any complaints relating to other councils involved with Mr B.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have discussed the complaint with Mr B’s representative. I have considered evidence provided by the Council and Mr B, relevant law, policy and guidance and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

Mental Health Act 1983

6. Under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, councils and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) have a joint duty to provide after-care services to people who have been detained in hospital for treatment under certain sections of the 1983 Act.
7. Section 117 aftercare services must:

• meet a need arising from or related to the mental disorder for which the person was detained; and
• have the purpose of reducing the risk of the person’s mental condition worsening and the person returning to hospital for treatment for the mental disorder.

8. The “Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice” (the Code) is statutory guidance. The Code says section 117 aftercare can include accommodation and continues as long as the person needs these services. Accommodation can generally only be part of section 117 aftercare if:

• the need is for enhanced specialised accommodation (“accommodation plus”);
• the need for the accommodation arises from, or is related to, the reason the person was detained in the first place (“the original condition”); and
• the “accommodation plus” reduces the risk of the person’s mental health condition worsening and the likelihood of the person returning to hospital for treatment for mental disorder.

9. Councils and ICBs must keep a record of the people for whom they provide aftercare services and what those services are.
10. The Care Programme Approach is the overarching system for co-ordinating the care of people with mental disorders.
11. Under section 117, if a person is ordinarily resident in council area A immediately before detention under the 1983 Act and moves on discharge to council area B, council A will remain responsible for providing or commissioning their aftercare. However, if the patient, having become ordinarily resident after discharge in council area B, is subsequently detained in hospital for treatment again, council B will be responsible for their aftercare when they are discharged from hospital.

Background to the complaint

12. Mr B is an adult man who has mental health diagnoses and has a history of alcohol and substance misuse. Mr B was street homeless for many years. Mr B was previously living in Worcestershire and was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act in the past. He is eligible for S117 aftercare services.
13. Mr B moved to a neighbouring council (council K) in December 2022 after being offered housing with a charity that specialises in providing support to people with addiction problems.
14. He was later evicted from this accommodation and spent time in temporary accommodation and was also homeless. He had several admissions to hospital for pneumonia and overdoses.
15. In 2023 Worcestershire Council’s social worker proposed that Mr B should move to accommodation in council K run by agency 1. Agency 1 had obtained a new property which was empty. Mr B would be the first resident and other residents would join him. Mr B would receive 5 hours of 1 to 1 support a day, sleep-in support and 10 hours formal shared support which would be split between residents as and when they moved in. Mr B would have 24 hours support available.

Panel decision - December 2023

16. In December 2023 the Council’s funding panel considered Mr B’s application to move to the agency 1 accommodation. The panel did not approve the application as the panel did not think it would meet Mr B’s needs. The panel was concerned whether this was the right service for Mr B and felt that the accommodation was possibly proposed because it was the only option. (The Council had approached other providers but they had not offered Mr B a place.) The panel felt there may not be any longevity in it.
17. The panel raised concerns about the placement being a shared service and said it would be difficult to match people with similar needs. The panel questioned whether, if people with similar needs were placed at the same accommodation as Mr B, the staff had the right skills to support them all in an enclosed environment.
18. The panel noted that the provider scored ‘amber’ (requires improvement) on ‘well led’, one of the five key areas that the CQC inspected. A pre-placement risk assessment also scored the provider ‘amber’ in staff knowledge.
19. The provider was not known to the Council or to Council K and the panel felt the social worker should obtain further information on agency 1 and could take the application back to the panel.

Meetings with Mr B – January 2024

20. The social worker met with Mr B on 8 January 2024 and arranged a meeting with Mr B and the manager of agency 1 on 18 January 2024.

Panel decision – March 2024

21. The social worker returned the application for agency 1 to the panel on 19 March 2024. The panel rejected the application again, for similar reasons than before, namely that agency 1 did not have the expertise needed to support Mr B’s whose needs were ‘extremely complex’ and the fact that the provider was untested.

April 2024 – care plan

22. Mr B was admitted to hospital in March 2024 and was discharged to a hotel.
23. In April 2024, the social worker held a multi-disciplinary professionals’ with the different agencies that were supporting or would support Mr B in the future. The social worker explained the difficulties of finding accommodation for Mr B because of the history of his behaviour which had led to him being evicted from other placements. Mr B had also been arrested for various offences and needed legal representation.
24. Mr B said he wanted to remain in Council K and did not want to return to Worcestershire. Mr B was receiving support from:
• Charity 2 which supports people who require housing support and who have mental health issues.
• A charity that supports adults who have alcohol and substance misuse concerns.
• The Council’s Complex Homeless Intervention Prevention Services (CHIPS).
• A care agency, which provided daily support to Mr B, funded by the Council.
25. The professionals’ meeting identified these actions (among others):
• The Council would make a referral for Mr B to the Community Mental Health Team.
• Charity 2 would challenge the decision that Mr B was intentionally homeless.
• The social worker would support Mr B in obtaining legal representation.
• The social worker had found another placement run by agency 3. Agency 3 provided residential care to people with criminal convictions. Mr B was being assessed by agency 3 because a placement was needed as a matter of urgency.
26. The social worker concluded in Mr B’s care plan of April 2024: ‘In my opinion, [Mr B] requires a high level of consistent and flexible support that could only be provided in a specialised environment that provides 24-hour support and works with complex cases involving mental health, trauma informed approaches and substance addiction services… Once Mr B has developed more effective coping strategies for his well-being around addiction and mental health, he could return to the community with an ongoing package of care and support from community-based services to help build upon and maintain positive support arrangements.’
27. The care plan also noted that Mr B was entitled to a direct payment of £370 a week to enable him to buy services to meet eligible needs under Section 117 aftercare. The social worker spoke to Mr B on 18 April 2024 and Mr B agreed to the direct payments but said he would struggle to manage this in his current circumstances but may perhaps be able to achieve this in the future.

Care plan – May 2024

28. The social worker updated Mr B’s care plan in May 2024 and said:
• Agency 3 had assessed Mr B but said he required secondary mental health input before progressing with his application.
• Mr B struggled to engage with the care agency that the Council had provided and this service was discontinued.
• Another possible placement was identified for Mr B but the placement declined the application.
29. No alternative accommodation had been identified for Mr B because Mr B was deemed intentionally homeless and ‘his choices/lack of engagement with support services making it unfeasible to provide specialist accommodation services (such as supported living or residential care) due to uncontrolled mental health and challenging behaviours.’
30. The social worker said he would continue to liaise with the support network of services for Mr B and would ask for community mental health input through S117 aftercare to be included.
31. Mr B stayed in hotel accommodation for four weeks, but then had to move. The case notes of Friday 3 May 2024 showed the social worker found a different hotel for Mr B and informed Mr B of the address. The social worker described Mr B as ‘frustrated and struggling emotionally and became somewhat abusive towards me.’
32. On Monday 7 May 2024 the social worker found out that the hotel that he had found for Mr B, had refused Mr B access because of a previous incident. Mr B was homeless over the weekend. The case notes of 7 May 2024 show that the social worker tried to find another hotel for Mr B. He emailed the other agencies involved with Mr B to find out whether they had heard from Mr B and whether Mr B would be willing to accept another hotel. The notes are not clear but it appears that Mr B continued to be homeless from this time onwards, but continued to engage sometimes with the agencies that were providing support.
33. The Council held multi-disciplinary meetings about Mr B on 10 June, 24 June, 23 July and 13 August 2024. Mr B continued to be homeless and was due in court for the alleged offences. The meetings noted that it was ‘challenging’ to provide Mr B with what he wanted. Mr B said he wanted activity, housing and structure but also wanted a high degree of freedom. There was a concern that he would not receive that in any form of long-term placement provided through social care.
34. The attendants agreed that Mr B would not cope in HMO (home in multiple occupation) accommodation. Supported living was the only possibility but only if it included a self-contained flat which was near all the existing support services that he received. It was difficult to find a supported living unit which met those criteria and was also willing to accept Mr B. A lot of agencies and accommodation options had declined Mr B because of the complexity of his needs and his history which included evictions for his behaviour and allegations of criminal behaviour.
35. The Council identified another placement in June 2024, which was linked to charity 2 and was in a different local authority. Charity 2 assessed Mr B in September 2024 and offered him a provisional place. Charity 2’s accommodation had no vacancies but Mr B would be offered the next space when it became vacant. Mr B moved into temporary accommodation in October 2024.

Complaint – August 2024

36. Mr B complained to the Council (via his representative) in August 2024 and said:
• The social worker was not working in his best interests and he was refusing to transfer his care package to council K.
• There was poor communication from the social worker and the social worker acted as a gatekeeper not allowing Mr B to give his views.
• Mr B wanted a new social worker and he wanted the Council to transfer his care package to council K.
37. The Council responded and said:
• The social worker had explained to Mr B that the proposal to move to agency 1’s accommodation was subject to funding and the panel did not agree funding.
• The Council explained the rules of section 117 after care in terms of transfers to a different local authority.
• There had been little communication between the social worker and Mr B since May 2024 but that was because Mr B did not want to speak to the social worker anymore.
• The complaint investigator spoke to Mr B on 16 and 20 September. Mr B told the investigator that the relationship between him and the social worker had broken down and he therefore did not want any further contact from the social worker. Mr B declined the offer of a face-to-face meeting with the social worker and his line manager. Mr B agreed that the social worker could write to him via his representative and that he could contact the representative on his behalf.

Further information

38. Mr B's representative wrote to the Ombudsman on 7 November 2024. He said:
• He had not received any communication from Mr B's social worker since September 2024.
• An appointment was made for him to meet the social worker but the social worker failed to attend the appointment.
39. The Council said that its understanding of the conversation between the social worker and Mr B's representative in September 2024 was that the plan was for the social worker to contact the representative and explain the outcome to him. However the representative ‘declined this level of involvement possibly seeing this as outside of his role.’
40. The Council said communication with Mr B was discussed at the multi-disciplinary meeting on 8 October 2024. Charity 2’s worker said he was routinely in contact with Mr B and would be able to ensure that he was fully informed of all developments. So it was decided that communication with Mr B would continue via charity 2’s worker. At the time the expectation was that the charity 2 accommodation would be provided soon.
41. The Council has sent me the minutes of that meeting which showed that the attendants considered inviting Mr B’s representative to multi-disciplinary meetings in the future, but it was agreed that charity 2’s worker could update Mr B on developments.
42. Mr B’s social worker accepted communication could have been managed better but said he did not know of Mr B's views at the time.
43. The Council also added that, in relation to the appointment that was mentioned in the complaint (paragraph 38), it could not find any records relating to this appointment.

Analysis

44. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess Mr B’s needs or to say what his section 117 after care should be. I can only consider whether there was fault in the Council’s actions. I have done so by considering what the Council should have done, according to the law, guidance and policies and what it did.
45. There is no fault in the failure to transfer the care package to council K. I have set out the rules of ordinary residence and section 117 aftercare in paragraph 11 and these explain why Mr B continued to be Worcestershire County Council’s (and the relevant ICB’s) responsibility, in terms of section 117 aftercare, even after he had moved to council K. Of course, that did not stop the Council from funding section 117 aftercare for Mr B in a different local authority, but the funding responsibility would remain with the Council and would not transfer to the other local authority.
46. I have considered Mr B’s complaint that the social worker acted as a gatekeeper and did not consider Mr B’s views of what he wanted. I have not found evidence of fault in this respect.
47. The social worker had a clear understanding of what Mr B wanted and considered this in his pursuit of different options. The views and wishes or Mr B were central in the social worker’s considerations at the multi-disciplinary meetings. The attendants all agreed there was little point in pursuing an option if Mr B was unlikely to engage with it.
48. The social worker spent a lot of time contacting different agencies and accommodations to try to obtain the support that Mr B needed. There was a lot of communication between the social worker and the different agencies to establish what the aftercare should be and what would work for Mr B.
49. The notes showed the difficulty the Council had in finding a placement that would meet Mr B’s needs, that Mr B would accept, but that was also willing to accept Mr B. A lot of agencies and accommodation options were either not able to meet Mr B’s complex needs, could not give him the freedom he wanted or were not willing to accept the risks, because of his history.
50. I can see why Mr B (and his social worker) were so disappointed when the Council’s panel refused the placement with agency 1 twice. Agency 1 was one of the few agencies willing to accept Mr B and which Mr B was willing to attend. I do wonder, with hindsight, whether this was a missed opportunity. However, that does not mean I can say there was fault in the Council’s decision. The Council’s panel has explained why it made the decision and has given its reasons with reference to Mr B’s needs. If there is no fault in the way the decision was made, then the Ombudsman cannot question the outcome.
51. I have also considered whether there was a service failure in the Council’s support to Mr B.
52. I have explained in paragraph 34 the difficulties the Council encountered in finding a placement that met all the criteria and that would accept Mr B. I also accept that the Council offered Mr B direct payments to purchase a service for section 117 aftercare although Mr B said he was unable to take up the offer at the time.
53. The Council’s position was that Mr B needed a supported housing placement with 24-hour support which specialised in complex cases and which provided support in his mental health needs as well as his substance addiction and alcohol misuse. This was set out in the care plan. Clearly Mr B did not receive the full section 117 support he needed during the time period I have looked at.
54. Therefore, I am of the view that there was a service failure in Mr B’s case. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control, as I have set out in paragraph 2. There is no blame attached to service failure.
55. I have also investigated the complaint about the lack of communication with Mr B.
56. The relationship between the social worker and Mr B started to break down after Mr B was told the placement at agency 1 had not been approved. So it may be that it was the decision, not only the lack of communication that contributed to the breakdown of the relationship.
57. Mr B did not want to communicate with the social worker after May 2024 and confirmed this to the Council in September 2024.There is a disagreement about what was agreed in terms of communication with Mr B's representative in September 2024. The Council’s recollection of the agreement is different from Mr B’s representative. Unfortunately, there is no record of the conversation so it may be that there was a misunderstanding between both sides.
58. It was then decided at the multi-disciplinary meeting in October 2024, to communicate with Mr B via charity 2’s representative. This decision was made by all the agencies attending the meeting. I accept that communication with Mr B was difficult during this time, not only because of the breakdown in the relationship between the social worker and Mr B but also because Mr B did not have a fixed address and did not live in the Council’s area. However, once the decision was made, Mr B’s representative and Mr B should have been informed of this decision. It does not appear that this happened and this was fault.
59. Also, it appears this decision was made on the understanding that Mr B would soon be offered accommodation at the charity 2 accommodation, but that did not happen as there were no vacancies. So the Council should have kept this decision under review at later meetings when it became clear that Mr B would not be moving to charity 2 accommodation.
60. It is difficult to measure the extent of the injustice Mr B suffered as a result of this fault as it really depends on how much information charity 2’s representative continued to provide to Mr B. But certainly, I can understand why Mr B was upset that the Council was not communicating with him or his representative.
61. I have also considered whether there is a remedy that I can recommend. Mr B said his main goal was to be allocated a different social worker and he would accept that as a resolution to his complaint. The Council agreed in October 2024 to change Mr B’s social worker so that aim has been achieved. Mr B also wanted his case to be transferred to council K and I have explained in paragraph 45 why that outcome cannot be achieved.
62. Unfortunately, there were then further developments. Mr B was offered a place at charity 2’s accommodation but this broke down in June 2025. Mr B’s representative said the Council terminated Mr B’s section 117 aftercare after this happened.
63. I asked the Council whether this was true. The Council said it held a multi-disciplinary team meeting in June 2025. The social worker offered Mr B a further assessment but Mr B said he did not want to engage with the Council anymore. The Council said it had not ended Mr B’s section 117 support but Mr B did not have an allocated social worker anymore. The Council said that, if Mr B wanted to re-engage with the Council, it would re-open the referral.
64. In terms of communication I asked the Council whether it would agree to communicate with Mr B’s representative, if Mr B and his representative were in agreement. The Council said it would be willing to do this.
65. It is difficult therefore to recommend a remedy for Mr B as it depends on whether he wants to engage with support. But I accept Mr B may not be aware that he continues to be entitled to the full section 117 support and this should be made clear to him and an assessment / support offered.

Back to top

Action

66. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr B for the fault.
• Offer Mr B a meeting and a further assessment to re-start engagement with the Council if Mr B agrees.
• Offer to communicate via Mr B’s representative if Mr B and his representative agree.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

68. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman