Summary: Mr X complained the Council and NHS organisations failed to properly consider aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act when his daughter, Miss Y, left hospital in 2020. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to achieve more due to the time that has passed since the events complained about happened. Miss Y has also since had assessments and is receiving aftercare.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his daughter, Miss Y, about Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (the Trust), Leicestershire County Council (the Council) and the former Clinical Commissioning Group now NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board (the ICB).
2. He complains about Miss Y’s discharge from hospital in 2020 after she was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. He says the organisations allowed Miss Y to leave hospital without ensuring they properly assessed her for aftercare services, in particular section 117 aftercare.
3. Mr X says the Council and the ICB delayed meeting his daughter’s needs. He says this led to her health and well-being worsening. He also experienced increased carer’s strain and could not work and socialise with family and friends.
4. Mr X wants the Council and the ICB to ensure Miss Y receives the care and support she needs and therapy to deal with her trauma. He would also like compensating for the impact the faults had on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

5. 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).
6. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, 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)

7. 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

8. I considered evidence provided by the complainant and the organisations complained about, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered these comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

10. Miss Y was detained in hospital under the terms of Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Section 3 is for the purpose of providing treatment. Before the person is discharged an assessment should be completed to see if they have any needs that should be met. This is known as section 117 aftercare.
11. Section 117 imposes a duty on councils and the relevant NHS health authority (the ICB) to provide, or commission, free aftercare services to patients who have been detained under certain sections of the Mental Health Act. These free aftercare services are to meet needs arising from or related to the mental disorder, to reduce the risk of their mental condition worsening, and the need for another hospital admission again for their mental disorder.
12. The Trust arranged Miss Y’s discharge from hospital in July 2020. Miss Y received informal care from Mr X and lived with him. Mr X was registered as Miss Y’s lasting power of attorney for health and personal welfare (LPA). An LPA is a legal document, which allows a person (“the donor”) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves. Any decision has to be in the donor’s best interests.
13. Mr X complained to the Trust that it discharged Miss Y without considering her aftercare needs. He also complained about Miss Y’s clinical care and the provision of suitable therapy.
14. Mr X asked the City Council to provide social care support, but it later discovered it was not the responsible council for aftercare (we considered this complaint separately). The City Council contacted the Council about six months later.
15. The Council allocated Miss Y a social worker in early 2021 and contacted the former CCG to ask for support with case management. It also held a virtual meeting with Miss Y, her advocate and Mr X to discuss her care needs.
16. The Council said it offered Miss Y support from its Home Care Reablement Service so it could assess her care needs over a period of time. It said it did not receive a response from Miss Y or Mr X about the offer. Mr X does not agree with what the Council said. He said the Council painted an inaccurate picture of his daughter’s care needs leaving her without the care and support she needed. Mr X said Miss Y had to rely on him and other family members to provide her health and social care support.
17. Mr X wrote several letters of complaint to the Council, the Trust and the CCG about his daughter’s care and support needs and failure to follow the correct legislation and guidance.
18. The organisations responded to Mr X’s complaints throughout 2021 and 2022. He remained dissatisfied and so asked the Ombudsmen to consider his complaints.
19. While we were considering Mr X’s complaint, we learned that legal proceedings were ongoing involving all parties subject to the complaint. We therefore decided to end our investigation to allow the legal proceedings to finish. We advised Mr X that once the proceedings ended he could ask us to reconsider the complaint.
20. The legal proceedings ended in August 2024. Mr X asked the Ombudsmen to look again at the complaint in February 2025.

Analysis

21. Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsmen for six months after legal action ended. He considers that we or the organisations should have automatically reopened his complaint. This is not correct. We explained in our previous decision statement that Mr X would need to contact the Ombudsmen if he wanted us to reconsider his complaint once legal proceedings had ended.
22. Mr X was not responsible for all the delays, but the events he is complaining about happened around five years ago. Care, staff and policy/guidance have all moved on. We therefore need to consider whether investigation is possible or we can achieve a meaningful outcome.
23. While medical and social care records should be available, recollections by individuals about events that happened up to five years ago are unlikely to be reliable.
24. The Trust and ICB have both confirmed that since 2022, Miss X’s section 117 aftercare needs have been assessed. Different organisations than the Trust are now providing any support to meet Miss Y’s needs. The ICB’s complaint response explained it has worked with Miss Y to source services that could meet her needs, and were acceptable to her and Mr X. Some of these alternatives were out of area and/or private providers. While the standard of care provided since is not part of this complaint, Miss Y’s section 117 aftercare needs have now been considered. She is receiving services that aim to meet her needs and prevent hospital admission under the Mental Health Act.
25. I consider we are unlikely to achieve more given the historical nature of the complaint. I appreciate some of this was out of the Mr X’s control. However, due to the time that has passed, it would be difficult for us to fully consider the complaint and any recommendations we are likely to make would lack relevance.
26. I have also considered whether there are wider issues with section 117 aftercare in Leicestershire, but the information we hold does not show this is the case.

Back to top

Decision

27. I therefore do not consider we should investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to achieve more due to the time that has passed since the events complained about happened.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman