Summary: Mrs B complained that funding intended for her section 117 aftercare respite support was wrongly used to fund Personal Assistant hours instead. She also complained the organisations failed to review her support needs when required. She said she had suffered significant distress and frustration. We have decided to uphold Mrs B’s complaint. The organisations have agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that funding intended for her respite support under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was used to fund Personal Assistant hours without her knowledge. She said this resulted in the loss of around £5,000 of respite funding, which should have been available to help manage her mental health. She also complained the Council and NHS Trust failed to carry out a review of her support needs which was due in June 2026.
2. Mrs B said these failings caused her significant distress and frustration and worsened her mental health. She said she felt uncertainty about the future of her Personal Assistant support. She wants the organisations to acknowledge and apologise for the errors, complete the overdue review of her support needs, and provide a financial remedy equivalent to the lost respite funding.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the organisations that are the subject of the complaint, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the organisations, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs B had the opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Mrs B receives support for her mental health under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Coventry City Council (the Council) and NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board have overall responsibility for Mrs B’s section 117 aftercare. The day-to-day management and delivery of her support is carried out by the Council and Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust (the Trust).
9. Mrs B complained that some of the funding for her section 117 support was wrongly used to pay for her Personal Assistant hours, when it should have been available for her to use for respite support. She said this had resulted in the loss of around £5,000 of respite funding intended to help manage her mental health and reduce the risk of hospital admission. She also said she was due a review and reassessment of her respite funding and support needs but this had been delayed.
10. During our consideration of the complaint, the organisations told us they had identified an administration error which resulted in Mrs B’s Personal Assistant funding being incorrectly ended. They told us this had been corrected, Mrs B’s funding had been reinstated, and she had received around £6,000 in back-payments.
11. Mrs B confirmed to us that she continued to receive her Personal Assistant support and had access to her direct payment funds for respite again. The organisations also told us they would arrange the overdue review of Mrs B’s care and support needs.

My assessment

12. If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find fault by the organisations because of the admitted administration error and their failure to carry out a review of Mrs B’s care and support needs when it was due. Mrs B said these failings caused her avoidable distress and uncertainty.
13. We therefore asked the organisations to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B by taking the following actions:
• Providing a written explanation and apology to Mrs B for the administration error affecting her Personal Assistant and respite funding payments, and for the impact this had on her
• Paying Mrs B the sum of £300 (the funding split to be determined between the Trust and Council) as a symbolic payment to recognise the avoidable distress and upset she experienced
• Arranging the review of Mrs B’s care and support needs (if this has not already happened), to take place by 16 October 2026
14. To their credit, the organisations have agreed to carry out these actions to resolve the complaint. The organisations should provide us with evidence that they have completed these actions. The explanation and apology, and the payment of £300, should be completed by 22 October 2026. The review of support needs should be completed by 16 October 2026.

Back to top

Decision

15. We have upheld this complaint about the Council and NHS Trust. They have agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman