Summary: Mr X complains that a Council and Integrated Care Board did not fund his father’s accommodation under section 117 of the Mental Health Act. Mr X said this led to a financial impact for his father and distress for Mr X in pursuing the complaint. We will not investigate this complaint as the Council has repaid the accommodation fees and it would not be proportionate to investigate the time and trouble for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council and NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board (the ICB) failed to properly consider his father, Mr Y’s entitlement to section 117 aftercare accommodation in line with the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). Mr X says the Council and ICB held a s117 aftercare discharge planning meeting but failed to decide whether accommodation should form part of the plan despite there being evidence his father’s needs for accommodation were linked to deterioration in his mental health which could lead to readmission to hospital.
2. Mr X says, the lack of clarity meant his father’s had to claim housing benefit which he was not eligible for. This led to a debt for rent accruing to over £12,000 which the Council has paid. He says the uncertainty about funding for accommodation going forward causes unnecessary worry and avoidable distress.
3. Mr X also says he has spent time and trouble pursuing his complaint and trying to understand the funding responsibilities regarding section 117 aftercare. He feels this could have been avoided if the Council and the ICB had better considered the issue of accommodation when his father was discharged.
4. Mr X wants the Council to communicate with the ICB and confirm his father’s placement will be funded in line with s117 of the MHA. He also seeks an apology an acknowledgement of his time and trouble pursuing this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

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, or
• 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

S117 aftercare

7. S117 of the MHA imposes a duty on health and social services to meet the health/social care needs arising from or related to the person’s mental disorder for patients who have been detained under specific sections of the MHA. Aftercare services provided in relation to the person’s mental disorder under S117 cannot be charged for. This is known as section 117 aftercare.
8. S117 aftercare services must:

• meet a need arising from or related to the mental disorder for which the person was detained; and
• have the purpose of reducing the risk of the person’s mental condition worsening and the person returning to hospital for treatment for the mental disorder.

9. The “Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice” (the Code) is statutory guidance. This means that councils and ICBs must follow it, unless there are good reasons not to. The Code says that 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.

10. Councils and ICBs must keep a record of the people for whom they provide aftercare services and what those services are.

Background

11. Mr X’s father was discharged was hospital to the supported accommodation placement (the Placement) in 2024.
12. Mr X had correspondence with the Council about the s117 aftercare not explicitly stating that it would fund the Placement.
13. The Council said it did not properly consider the factors of Mr Y’s housing situation on his mental health.
14. The Council said that its records show that on his move to the Placement it expected Mr Y to apply for housing benefit. It agreed with Mr X that there was no indication that accommodation was part of the s117 plan.
15. However, the Council admitted there should have been more consideration and greater clarity about whether housing was part of Mr Y’s aftercare arrangements of meeting a need arising from his mental disorder and reducing the risk of his mental deterioration.
16. The Council repaid the rent that accrued at the Placement.
17. Council confirmed to the Ombudsmen it has agreed to contribute 50% of Mr Y’s accommodation as part of s117 aftercare in his current placement, with the NHS paying the other half.
18. Due to this, we would not investigate this complaint. The major issue has now been resolved and although there may have been time and trouble on Mr X’s part in pursuing this complaint, it would not be proportionate to investigate just on this matter.

Back to top

Decision

19. Although there may have been fault on the part of the Council and ICB, by agreeing to repay Mr Y’s rent and continuing to pay it at the Placement, it has resolved the main injustice in this case. Therefore, although there may have been lesser injustice to Mr X, it would not be proportionate to investigate the case on this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman