Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her brother, Mr Y, with satisfactory support for 28 days. We will not investigate this complaint. Although it is clear the events caused Mr Y some distress, the Council has accepted some fault and taken action to resolve the issues brought to us. This includes apologising for the distress its actions caused and putting support in place to meet Mr Y’s needs. It is unlikely we could add more by investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of her brother, Mr Y, about Suffolk County Council (the Council) and NHS Suffolk & North East Essex ICB (the ICB). Mrs X complains Mr Y did not have support for 28 days after his Personal Assistant (PA) left. Mrs X says Mr Y could not manage his direct payments himself and the Council failed to ensure support was in place when his PA left. Mrs X also complains that a social worker failed to attend a section 117 aftercare review, meaning the meeting could not go ahead.
2. Mrs X says the failings caused Mr Y additional distress and placed him at risk of serious harm. She says Mr Y self-harmed and could not leave his home because of severe anxiety.
3. Mrs X says they want services to be improved and for these mistakes not to happen again.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
   (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act imposes a duty on health and social services to meet the health/social care needs arising from or related to the person’s mental disorder for patients who have been detained under specific sections of the Mental Health Act. This is known as section 117 aftercare. This is a joint responsibility between health and social care organisations, which is the reason we have included the ICB and the Council in this complaint.
7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

Brief background

8. Mr Y received section 117 aftercare. The Council was meeting his social care needs by providing Mr Y with direct payments. He had a PA to help him manage this. In late 2024, his PA gave notice to leave. Mr Y asked the Council for help to organise his care as doing this himself was too stressful and affected his mental health.
9. The Council said it offered a review in August 2024, but Mr Y and his social worker agreed to discuss this at a section 117 review scheduled in November.
10. The section 117 review was to take place by video call. On the day of the review, Mr Y’s social worker was ill and a duty social worker tried to stand in. Unfortunately they could not join the call. The review therefore could not go ahead and this was rescheduled for January 2025.
11. Following this, Mr Y complained to the Council about the lack of support and his section 117 needs not being reviewed. Mr Y said he had found an agency that could meet his needs, but this was slightly more expensive per hour. However, because this agency provided specialist mental health support, Mr Y said he was prepared to reduce the hours to mitigate the increased hourly rate.
12. The Council did not agree to this and suggested two other agencies. These were both unsuitable or could not meet Mr Y’s needs. The Council did then agree to use the agency Mr Y had identified, but by the point this was in place, Mr Y had been without support for around four weeks.

My assessment

13. The Council’s complaint response has accepted there were problems with the section 117 review meeting. This was a combination of staff absence and technical issues with the video meeting. While this does not necessarily indicate fault, there was service failure and it then took almost three months to reschedule. In this time, Mr Y’s PA left and Mr Y had no support in place.
14. Public bodies must manage finances carefully. I therefore do not consider it was unreasonable for the Council to consider other, more cost-effective, choices than Mr Y’s suggested solution. However, this left Mr Y without any support. The Council had a duty to ensure Mr Y had support while it took the time to complete its considerations. This does not appear to have happened and indicates fault. Mrs X said this caused distress to Mr Y and put him at increased risk of harm.
15. However, after the two agencies were found to be unsuitable, the Council did revisit Mr Y’s original suggestion and agreed to this, although there was a slight further delay arranging this. The Council’s complaint response also explained that Mrs X agreed to be a nominated person to help Mr Y manage his direct payments.
16. There are therefore indications of fault leading to an injustice to Mr Y. However, the Council has accepted fault and apologised for the distress caused to Mr Y. It also took action to resolve the lack of care. The Council also offered to attend additional multiagency meetings should this be needed. This appears to be a reasonable and proportionate outcome to the issues raised.

Back to top

Decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint because the local complaint process resolved the issues brought to us and it is unlikely we can achieve more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman