Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s communication with its officer and her request for an assessment. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council’s officer contacted her after she had been assessed under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and left her with no support. Ms X says the Council’s officer accepted lies from the local mental health team that she had declined support. Ms X says the Council refused her request for a social worker and an assessment for section 117 aftercare. She says she remains unwell without the care and support she needs. Ms X wants the Council to allocate a named social worker to support her, assess her for section 117 aftercare and provide care and support without charge.

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
• 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 including the Council’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The issue Ms X complains about contact with the Council’s officer is not the same complaint the Ombudsman considered previously. I have therefore considered this as a new complaint as events occurred in February 2026.
6. Ms X complained to the Council in February 2026 about contact she had with its officer around that time. Ms X said the mental health team had told the officer she did not engage with the mental health service, but this was a lie. She said the Council’s officer knew she needed urgent care but the failed to provide help. Ms X said she wanted the Council to allocate her a social worker and assess her for section 117 aftercare in line with the MHA.
7. The Council responded to Ms X and said the substantive matter had already been considered so it would not progress the issue in line with its complaint procedures. It said it would deal with what Ms X had said about having a social worker and section 117 aftercare as a service request. It confirmed it had referred the request to the mental health team. The Council said an officer would contact Ms X once a date for a s117 review had been agreed.
8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council can decide to deal with the matter as a service request instead of following its complaint procedures. The Council said it would consider what Ms X asked for and communicate with her as necessary. This is a reasonable response from the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms 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