Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Approved Mental Health Professional allegedly misleading Mr X when sectioning his partner under the Mental Health Act. Any injustice we would likely find if we investigated the matter is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s Approved Mental Health Practitioner (AMHP) misled him about the authority they had to detain his partner under the Mental Health Act. He said this had a significant impact on his relationship. He wanted the Council to acknowledge fault.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s AMHP allegedly misleading him about the authority they had obtained to detain his partner under the Mental Health Act.
6. Mr X ultimately allowed the AMHP access to his home to detain his partner after already having received clarity about what powers were, and were not, in place.
7. If we investigated this complaint, we might find any fault in the Council’s actions had caused Mr X some frustration. Our Guidance on Jurisdiction explains we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
8. Any frustration Mr X experienced is not likely to meet this threshold.
9. Our Guidance on Jurisdiction also explains we will not normally investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant is not the person primarily affected and is complaining about a secondary impact on them, rather than acting on behalf of the person directly affected, or
• the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice, distress and loss, but those events cannot be shown to be directly the result of the actions or omissions of the service provider.
10. Mr X complained to us in his own right, and not on behalf of his partner who would primarily have been affected by any fault in the process of their detention. If we investigated this complaint, we also could not say the Council was directly responsible for the strain on Mr X’s relationship.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice we would likely find if we investigated the matter is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman