Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that North Yorkshire Council and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB failed to provide her with aftercare following her detention under the Mental Health Act in 2014. This is because a significant amount of time has passed since the events Ms X is complaining about occurred and it would have been reasonable for her to complain to us sooner. We will not investigate her complaint about the actions of an Approved Mental Health Practitioner as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X is entitled to free aftercare services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Ms X complains she has not received the section 117 aftercare that she has been entitled to since 2014. North Yorkshire Council (the Council) and NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB (the ICB) are jointly responsible for her section 117 aftercare.
2. Ms X also complains about the actions of an Approved Mental Health Practitioner (AMHP) from the Council, who contacted the police about her in December 2024.
3. Ms X says she has incurred significant financial loss. Ms X is seeking a financial payment for section 117 aftercare, backdated to 2014.

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 cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4).)
6. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. Ms X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. Ms X is diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She disputes this diagnosis. Ms X has been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the MHA) on several occasions.
10. Ms X says she was detained under section 3 of the MHA in 2014. Section 3 of the MHA is for the purpose of providing treatment for a maximum of six months.
11. 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 (e.g. Section 3). Aftercare services provided in relation to the person’s mental disorder under s117 cannot be charged for. This is known as section 117 aftercare.
12. Ms X says she was not provided with s117 aftercare when she was discharged, despite being eligible for it. Ms X is seeking payments for missed s117 aftercare, backdated to 2014. The Council has previously explained to Ms X that there is no monetary value attached to s117 aftercare so PA unable to claim any redress.
13. In December 2024, Ms X was assessed under the MHA. During this process, the AMHP contacted the police with concerns Ms X may be a risk when driving. Ms X says this was unnecessary and inappropriate.

Analysis

S117

14. The Ombudsmen usually will not investigate late complaints unless they decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsmen about something an organisation has done.
15. Ms X is complaining about events from 2014, over a decade ago. Ms X says she was not told she was entitled to s117 aftercare. However, the Council records show that Ms X has been asking the Council for s117 back payments since at least 2022. As such, Ms X was aware of the problem more than 12 months before raising her concerns with the Ombudsmen. She has not provided a good reason for this delay.
16. The Ombudsmen provide a free service but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start an investigation if the prospect of conducting an effective investigation is reduced. In this case, it has been over a decade since the matters complained about occurred. It has been over three years since Ms X started raising concerns with the Council about lack of s117 aftercare. The significant amount of time passed impacts on our ability to consider the complaint now. This is because recollections fade over time and key evidence, such as case records, may no longer be available.

AMHP

17. Ms X complains about the actions of an AMHP during a MHA assessment in December 2024. Ms X complains the AMHP contacted the police about her. The Council’s complaint response of 11 March 2025 says “services are duty bound to contact police when there are concerns regarding a person’s safety. This includes any risk a person may pose to themselves or the community.” The AMHP appears to have acted appropriately in having regard to the safety of Ms X and the wider community. For this reason, we will not investigate this matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint failure to provide s117 aftercare since 2014. A significant amount of time has passed since the events that are the subject of this complaint occurred. In my view, it would have been reasonable to expect Ms X to approach us sooner than she did. This complaint is late and I can see no good reason to consider it now.
19. There is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the AMHP’s decision to contact the police. Therefore, there is no basis for the Ombudsmen to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman