Summary: A woman complained about the way the Council carried out an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983 in her case. But the Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint. I also considered Ms X’s comments in response to a draft of this decision. In addition I took account documents the Council provided about its involvement in Ms X’s case.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman after a Council officer and others came to her home unannounced and gained entry in order to interview her.
5. In response to my enquiries the Council explained that the visit was carried out by one of its social workers, accompanied by two police officers and two doctors, with the aim of completing an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the Act’) in Ms X’s case.
6. The Council said it took this action in response to contact from a third party which raised concerns about Ms X’s wellbeing and mental health.
7. The Council’s initial response was to contact Ms X to try and arrange an appointment for an assessment by a social worker. But Ms X refused to make an appointment.
8. The courts can issue a warrant under the Act where there is reason to suspect a person believed to have a mental disorder is unable to care for themselves. A warrant allows the police to enter the person’s home and take them to, or keep them in, a place of safety where a mental health assessment can be carried out. The assessment is to decide if an application to detain the person in hospital should be made or if other arrangements for their treatment or care are needed.
9. Following its failed attempts to make an appointment with Ms X, the Council decided to apply for a warrant and the court agreed to issue this.
10. The Council said on the day of the visit to Ms X’s home the police showed her the warrant and explained its purpose. The Council said the police tried to guide Ms X out of the door so they could take her to a place of safety, but she refused to go. It was then decided to carry out the assessment in Ms X’s home. The Council said at no point was Ms X forcibly removed from her home.
11. Following the assessment it was decided that an application for detention in hospital was not necessary in Ms X’s case. However the Council has continued to encourage her to engage with other mental health services.

Analysis

12. From the information provided I am not convinced there is sign of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Ms X’s case.
13. First, I see no reason to doubt the Council acted in response to genuine concerns about Ms X’s welfare. In addition I note that having received those concerns the Council was then under a legal duty to carry out an assessment in her case.
14. It also appears the Council made reasonable attempts to contact Ms X to arrange an assessment. But once it was clear Ms X would not agree to see a social worker I consider it was appropriate for the Council to apply for a warrant under the Act.
15. It was for the court to decide whether to issue the warrant. But the Ombudsman cannot question matters decided in court. Therefore we cannot pursue any complaint Ms X has about the issuing of a warrant in her case.
16. I have also considered the information provided about what happened on the day of the visit to Ms X’s property. But I am not convinced there is suggestion of fault by the Council regarding this matter.
17. In particular I note the Council arranged for relevant professionals to attend the visit, in line with the Government’s Code of Practice under the Act. I also understand the social worker explained to Ms X about the need for an assessment and the process involved.
18. It appears that what Ms X felt was an attempt to kidnap her related to the police officers’ attempt to encourage her to go to a place of safety where the assessment could be done. However I understand the police were entitled to take this action under the terms of the warrant. I also see no reason to doubt that the police did not force Ms X to leave her home.
19. But anyway, we can only look at what the Council did in Ms X’s case, and the Council was not responsible for the actions of the police. If Ms X considers the police officers acted wrongly or caused damage to her home, she would need to complain directly to the police about these matters.
20. In its response to Ms X’s complaint the Council stressed it had acted legally in her case, but it did apologise for any distress she was caused because of the events on the day of the assessment. I consider this is an appropriate response by the Council.
21. In the circumstances I do not see there is evidence to suggest we would find fault by the Council in Ms X’s case. As a result I have concluded there is no justification for us to start an investigation of her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

22. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council carried out a Mental Health Act 1983 assessment in her case. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman