Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way in which Derby City Council and NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board dealt with her father, Mr Y’s, accommodation as we would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, is complaining about the care and support provided to her father, Mr Y, by Derby City Council (the Council) and DNHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board (the ICB).
2. Mrs X complains about the decision of the Council and ICB that Mr Y’s accommodation should not be included in the free aftercare services to which he is entitled under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
3. Mrs X complains that this decision means Mr Y is forced to pay for the accommodation through a combination of his savings and housing benefit.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. 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).
5. 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.
6. If we are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the organisations that are the subject of the complaint, we can issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her. In addition, I considered information and documentation provided by the Council. I also had regard for relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Section 117 aftercare

9. The Mental Health Act 1983 (the MHA) allows that 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’.
10. A detention under section 3 of the MHA is for the purpose of providing treatment. A person who has been detained under section 3 of the MHA is entitled to free aftercare services under section 117 of the same legislation. These services are intended to prevent a deterioration in the person’s mental health and reduce the risk of them requiring further admission to hospital.
11. Responsibility for providing or arranging these services in Mr Y’s case rests with the Council and ICB.
12. The ‘Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice’ (the Code) is statutory guidance that accompanies the Mental Health Act. The Code says section 117 aftercare can include accommodation and continues as long as the person needs these services. Accommodation can generally only be part of section 117 aftercare if:

• the need is for enhanced specialised accommodation (“accommodation plus”);
• the need for the accommodation arises from, or is related to, the reason the person was detained in the first place (“the original condition”); and
• the “accommodation plus” reduces the risk of the person’s mental health condition worsening and the likelihood of the person returning to hospital for treatment for mental disorder.

Background events

13. Mr Y became eligible for section 117 aftercare in 2013 following his detention under a qualifying section of the Mental Health Act.
14. In 2016, Mr Y was placed in extra care housing. This is accommodation for older people that allows them to live independently in the community with some flexible support. This accommodation was not included in Mr Y’s section 117 aftercare. As a result, he was advised to apply for housing benefit to meet the costs of the placement. Mr Y began to receive housing benefit shortly afterwards.
15. In February 2025, the Council suspended Mr Y’s housing benefit as he had savings above the threshold of £16,000. This meant Mr Y was required to pay for his placement until such time as his savings dropped below the threshold.
16. In July 2025, the Council wrote to Mrs X (as Mr Y’s appointee) to explain that he was in rent arrears. This had come about as he was no longer receiving housing benefit and had not made any payments.
17. Mrs X subsequently complained that Mr Y was entitled to section 117 aftercare and that his accommodation should be included within this provision.
18. In its response, the Council explained that section 117 aftercare can include accommodation in certain exceptional circumstances where an individual requires a specific form of accommodation related to their mental disorder. However, it said this provision would not cover a person’s rent, which is considered a general living expense.

My analysis and findings

19. The Code says that local authorities and ICBs should interpret the definition of aftercare services broadly. This means a variety of services can be included within a person’s section 117 aftercare provision. This can include a person’s accommodation in some cases.
20. However, the Code also makes clear that section 117 aftercare services must meet a need arising from or related to a person’s mental disorder. These services are intended to reduce the risk of the person’s mental health deteriorating and the need for a further hospital admission.
21. The Council put a care plan in place for Mr Y in 2016. This noted Mr Y required support with meal preparation and prompts to take his medication. It was agreed that his needs could best be met in extra care housing. The care plan ended in August 2020 at Mr Y’s request as he said he no longer wanted the additional support.
22. The evidence I have seen suggests Mr Y’s extra care accommodation was intended to support his more general social care needs rather than specific needs arising from or related to his mental disorder. This seems to support the Council’s position. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, therefore, as I consider it unlikely an investigation would find fault with the way the Council made this decision.

Back to top

Decision

23. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint as we would be unlikely to find fault with the actions of the Council and ICB in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman