Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mrs Y was not entitled to section 117 aftercare in line with the Mental Health Act 1983. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider whether his mother, Mrs Y, was entitled to section 117 aftercare in line with the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). He says his mother should not be paying for the care and support she receives in line with the Care Act 2014 because it should be provided without charge in line with section 117 of the MHA. Mr X also complains the Council has not assessed his needs as a carer and this causes him distress and frustration. He wants the Council to assess his mother’s section 117 aftercare needs and his needs as a carer.

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 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. In February 2026 we issued a decision relating to what Mr X says about his carer’s assessment. I have not considered this part of the complaint further because the Council dealt with the matter following our decision.
6. Mr X says his mother is entitled to section 117 aftercare because she has been previously detained under the terms of section 3 of the MHA.
7. Anyone who may have a need for community care services is entitled to a social care assessment when they are discharged from hospital to establish what services they might need. Section 117 of the MHA imposes a duty on health and social services to meet the health and social care needs arising from or related to the person’s mental disorder for patients who have been detained under specific sections of the MHA (e.g. Section 3). Aftercare services provided in relation to the person’s mental disorder cannot be charged for and is called section 117 aftercare.
8. When Mr X contacted the Council about Mrs Y’s entitlement to section 117 aftercare the Council responded to him to confirm its decision. The Council confirmed Mrs Y was discharged from section 117 aftercare services in 2009 in line with the relevant part of the MHA. This was because the Council (and the health authority) was satisfied Mrs Y was no longer in need of section 117 aftercare.
9. The Council confirmed it assessed Mrs Y in line with terms of the
   Care Act 2014 in 2023 and she receives care and support. As part of the financial assessment process it asked for financial information which it said it had not received from Mrs Y or her representative. This is in line with the Council’s charging policy for adult social care services and a decision it is entitled to make.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about whether his mother is entitled to section 117 aftercare. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council confirmed Mrs Y was discharged from section 117 aftercare in 2009 and therefore receives services under the terms of the
    Care Act 2014 which are chargeable. Mrs Y or her representative can provide the Council with information it says it needs complete the financial assessment process. This will provide an accurate assessment of what Mrs Y can afford to pay.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman