Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision to detain Miss X under the Mental health Act. There was a tribunal available and this would have been the appropriate way to challenge this decision. We will not investigate the Council’s role in how it arranged the Mental Health Assessment or with how it looked after Miss X’s dog because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about Leicestershire County Council (the Council) and Leicester Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust).
2. Miss X complains about the actions of, and information shared between, social care staff, the police and mental health professionals. She says this resulted in her being unfairly detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act.
3. Miss X also complains that while she was detained, the Council arranged for her dog to be looked after, but when she left hospital, her dog was unwell.
4. Miss X says the failings have caused her mental health to suffer and she no longer feels safe in her home. Miss X wants members of the police to be sacked from their roles and to receive compensation so she can move away.

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 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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal.

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

Back to top

What I found

Administrative and legal context

Mental Health Act

9. 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. 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 to carry out Mental Health Act assessments (Section 12 doctors). 

AMHPs

10. The AMHP is responsible for deciding whether to go ahead with the application to detain the person and for telling the person. Local authorities are responsible for the actions of AMHPs. 

Section 12 doctors 

11. 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.

Brief background

12. In June 2024 the police arrested Miss X. They were concerned about Miss X’s mental state and asked for a mental health review. Following this an AMHP and two section 12 doctors assessed Miss X. They decided she needed to be admitted to hospital under section 2 of the MHA.
13. The Council arranged kennel accommodation for Miss X’s dog for the duration of Miss X’s hospital admission. When Miss X left hospital, her dog had a respiratory infection.

My assessment

14. Complaints about the police are not in our remit. We therefore cannot consider any of Miss X’s complaints about the police’s actions.
15. The Council acted on information from the police and mental health professionals to arrange an assessment under the MHA. This appears to have been in line with the MHA Code of Practice, with an AMHP and two section 12 doctors present. I have therefore seen no indications of fault with how the assessment was arranged.
16. The AMHP and section 12 doctors decided to detain Miss X after assessing her. Miss X could have appealed the decision at a Mental Health Tribunal following her admission to hospital. This would have been the correct route to challenge the decision to detain her under the MHA.
17. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council did not take suitable action to look after Miss X’s dog. The Council arranged for kennels to look after her dog while she was in hospital. Although it was unfortunate her dog became ill, I do not consider the Council can be held responsible for this. Additionally, the Council offered to cover the vet’s bill, if applicable, which seems more than reasonable.
18. Miss X said in her complaint to us that she wants staff dismissed from their roles. This is not an outcome we can achieve, even if we did find fault. Furthermore, some of these people were part of the police, who we have no jurisdiction over.

Back to top

Decision

We should not investigate Miss X’s complaints because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and there was a more appropriate route available to challenge her detention under the Mental Health Act.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman