Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision it was no longer responsible for the complainant’s aftercare needs after she moved out of its area and was sectioned in a different council’s area. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss D complains the Council is refusing to accept responsibility for her needs which should be met in line with section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
   Miss D says the Council did not consider her homelessness when deciding whether it was responsible for her aftercare needs when she lived in a different council’s area (Council X). As an outcome Miss D wants the Council to accept responsibility for her aftercare needs as she remains unhappy with the aftercare Council X provides.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Under the Mental Health Act 1983 (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 include an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) and usually (but not always) two doctors who have been specially approved to carry out Mental Health Act assessments (Section 12 doctors). 
6. Section 3 of the Mental Health Act is for the purpose of providing treatment. Detention under section 3 empowers doctors to detain a patient for a maximum of six months. The detention under section 3 can be renewed for another six months.
7. Before the person is discharged, an assessment should take place to assess if they have any social care needs that should be met. People who are discharged from section 3 will not have to pay for any aftercare they will need. This is known as section 117 aftercare.
8. Miss D contacted the NHS in May 2025 about the funding arrangements for her section 117 aftercare needs. She said she was eligible for section 117 aftercare when she lived in the Council’s area. Miss D said she moved to Council’s X area to study and was later sectioned under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Miss D said she wanted the Council to take back responsibility for her aftercare needs. The NHS directed her to complain to the Council.
9. The Council responded to Miss D’s complaint in July. It said it could not take back responsibility for her section 117 aftercare needs. It said the Mental Health
   Act 1983 made clear the legal responsibility for her section 117 aftercare needs was with Council X as this was where she was last sectioned in line with
   Section 3. The Council told Miss D she should complain to Council X if she was unhappy with her care arrangements.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council’s duty to provide Miss D with section 117 aftercare ended when she was sectioned in Council’s X’s area and was discharged from that detention. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss D’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman