Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in attending his community treatment order recall. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken, and it is unlikely an investigation by us would add anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in attending and assessing his community treatment order (CTO) recall. He says this delay caused him to be unlawfully detained in hospital for eight days.
2. He says this caused him significant distress and frustration. He wants the Council to acknowledge the detention was unlawful, review its procedures to prevent this happening again and to pay him a financial remedy for the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about its delay in attending and assessing his CTO recall. The Council accepted there was a delay and apologised for this and any distress it caused. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response.
8. The responsible clinician has overall responsibility for coordinating the CTO recall process. A patient can be detained in hospital for up to 72 hours following a recall. If the responsible clinician does not revoke the CTO within that time, the patient must be allowed to leave. If the patient needs inpatient treatment beyond 72 hours, the responsible clinician must consider revoking the CTO. This requires a joint assessment by the responsible clinician and the approved mental health professional (AMHP), which is the Council here.
9. On the evidence available, it is uncertain whether Mr X would have been released sooner had the Council attended earlier. However, any delay in the AMHP attending would have delayed a decision on whether to revoke the CTO. It is therefore possible the delay contributed to Mr X remaining in hospital longer than necessary.
10. While the delay may have contributed to Mr X’s extended detention, I am satisfied the Council’s acknowledgement of the delay and its apology are sufficient to recognise the impact of any fault. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve a more meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken, and it is unlikely we would add anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman