Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. She has not provided good reasons for approaching us late. Also, Miss B has already appealed the decision to detain her under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health).

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the decision to detain her under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act following an assessment by two section 12 doctors (for Leicester Partnership NHS Trust) and an Approved Mental Health Professional (for Leicestershire County Council). Specifically, Miss B says she was not mentally ill, and they were not honest why they recommended to detain her.
2. Miss B also complains a GP at Quorn Medical Centre (the Practice) did not flag domestic abuse by her ex-partner to those involved in the MHA assessment. Therefore, her ex-partner should not have been considered as her nearest relative.
3. As a result of the failings, Miss B says she was sectioned for 11 days, has lost her home and is fighting to keep her children. Miss B would like the sectioning removed from her records and a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4).)
5. The Ombudsmen may decide not to investigate a complaint if the complainant had a right of appeal and it was reasonable to expect them to use it. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 
6. 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the organisations.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
9. Miss B now had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered her comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

10. Under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), when someone has a mental disorder and is putting their safety or someone else’s at risk they can be detained in hospital against their wishes. This is sometimes known as ‘being sectioned’. Usually, three professionals need to agree that the person needs to be detained in hospital. These include an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) and usually (but not always) two doctors who have been specially approved in Mental Health Act detentions (Section 12 doctors).  
11. Section 2 is for the purpose of assessing someone in hospital following concerns about their mental health. They can be detained for up to 28 days.
12. The AMHP is responsible for deciding whether to go ahead with the application to detain the person and for telling the person. Any admission should be in the best interests of the person and they should not be detained if there is a less restrictive alternative. Local authorities are responsible for the actions of AMHPs.
13. When Section 12 doctors make recommendations under sections 2 or 3 of the MHA, they are acting under powers which have been given to them under the MHA. Ultimately, the doctors are providing their medical recommendations on behalf of the NHS. Because of this, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman can consider complaints about this work. 
14. In this complaint, the two Section 12 doctors both worked for the NHS Trust who ultimately decided to detain Mr X under Section X. This explains why we are investigating the NHS Trust.  
15. People who have been detained under the MHA can apply for a hearing to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) if they disagree with the decision. The Tribunal must discharge the person from detention if, on the day of the hearing, they do not meet the criteria needed for detention.  

Background

16. In May 2021, Miss B’s ex-partner told a GP that Miss B’s mental health was worsening and needed support. Following discussions with Miss B, her ex-partner and her sister, the GP decided Miss B may be suffering from paranoid thoughts. Miss B raised concerns about her ex-partners controlling and emotionally abusive behaviour to the GP.
17. At that time, the Police also visited Miss B and her ex-partner at home. The Police felt Miss B may need support from the Trust’s Psychosis Intervention & Early Recovery (PIER) Team. Miss B refused to engage with the PIER Team. That led the Police to refer Miss B to the Council’s AMHP Service.
18. Following the referral, the AMHP arranged a Mental Health Act assessment. The Section 12 doctors and AMHP recommended detaining Miss B under Section 2 of the MHA, which the Trust confirmed.
19. Miss B appealed her detention to the Tribunal. They decided to release her after 11 days.
20. After making Subject Access Requests (SAR) and complaints to the GP and Trust, Miss B approached the Ombudsmen in November 2023.

My assessment

21. We should not investigate Miss B’s complaints. I will explain why.
22. I consider her complaints are late and she should have approached the Ombudsmen sooner than she did.
23. She told me she took longer than 12 months to complain to us for two reasons.
24. First, she said she needed to make SARs before she could complain, to understand what was being written about her then. That took a long time between 2021 and 2022.
25. I do not consider it was proportionate for Miss B to make SARs before making her complaint. I understand she wanted to review her records from the time, but she clearly knew something was wrong on in May 2021.
26. Secondly, she said between 2022 and 2023 she was homeless and distressed because she had lost access to her children.
27. I understand that was a difficult time for Miss B, and making a complaint to the Ombudsmen was not a priority. However, I am not persuaded that justified a further 12-month delay.
28. Miss B had previously made complaints to the Ombudsmen, and would have been familiar with our jurisdictional tests, including making complaints within 12 months.
29. Overall, I am not persuaded Miss B has provided good reasons she took longer than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsmen after May 2021.
30. Even if I did not consider her complaint was late, I would not likely investigate her complaint anyway.
31. Miss B complains about the recommendation to detain her under Section 2, and the reasons for that. She has already appealed her detention to the Tribunal. I consider that appeal was the most appropriate way to address the decision and reason for her detention.
32. I would not likely find fault with the GP not communicating concerns about her ex‑partner to those involved in the MHA assessment. The GP did not make the referral, the Police did. The AMHP would have considered information shared by the Police, rather than the GP. The AMHP then needed to use their professional judgement to decide if Miss B’s ex‑partner was a suitable nearest relative.
33. Also, I could not achieve the outcome Miss B seeks – the removal of the detention from her records. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) considers complaints about the accuracy and deletion of records. The ICO are best placed to achieve that outcome for Miss B.

Back to top

Final decision

34. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. She has not provided good reasons for approaching us late.
35. Miss B has already appealed the decision to detain her under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health).
36. We are unlikely to find fault with the actions of the GP.
37. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss B seeks – the removal of the detention from her records.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman