Summary: Ms C complains the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and NHS North East London ICB failed to pay her daughter’s, Ms D’s housing costs despite her eligibility under section 117 Mental Health Act 1983. Ms C also complains they failed to respond to her complaints properly. The Council is at fault for failing to pay Ms D’s housing costs. This caused her avoidable stress and inconvenience. To remedy the complaint the Council will make a symbolic payment and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms C complains the Council has failed to fund housing costs for her daughter, Ms D, who is eligible under section 117 Mental Health Act 1983. Ms C also complains the Council did not respond to her complaint properly.
2. Because of these failures Ms C says she has had time, trouble and frustration in trying to resolve Ms D’s rent/housing issues and the worry that Ms D may be evicted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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).
4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. We may also investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them, if we consider them to be a suitable representative. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(3) and Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2)) (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1))
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, we consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
6. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused.  We might also recommend the organisation acts to stop the same mistakes happening again.
7. If we are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies 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 Ms C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms C, the Council and ICB had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Relevant law and guidance

Section 117 Mental Health Act 1983

10. Section 3 Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) allows people to be detained in hospital for treatment necessary for their health, safety or for protecting other people. Section 117 MHA imposes a duty on health and social services to provide free aftercare services to patients who have been detained under section 3 MHA. Councils and ICBs cannot delegate these aftercare duties, regardless of the day‑to‑day arrangements for delivering a person’s aftercare. Because of this, the relevant council and ICB will always be included in Ombudsmen investigations about section 117 aftercare.
11. Section 117 MHA requires councils and ICBs to provide free aftercare services to certain people. They must provide these services from the point the person leaves hospital until the council and ICB decide the person no longer needs them.
12. Section 117 MHA services are services which: meet a need arising from, or related to, the person’s mental disorder; and, reduce the risk of a deterioration in the person’s mental condition and, accordingly, reduce the risk of the person needing to be readmitted to hospital for treatment of a mental disorder.
13. The Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice (the Code) is statutory guidance. This means that councils and relevant NHS health authorities must follow it, unless there are good reasons not to. The Code says section 117 aftercare can “encompass healthcare, social care and employment services, supported accommodation and services to meet the person’s wider social, cultural and spiritual needs” (Section 33.4 of the Code).
14. For accommodation to be included in a section 117 plan it should be "accommodation plus". In other words, specialist enhanced accommodation that meets a need related to the person's mental disorder.
15. In 2022 LGSCO and PHSO issued guidance on Section 117 aftercare. In a section on accommodation, on page 7, this said “Where the person lives in specialist accommodation as part of their Section 117 aftercare arrangements, the council and/or [ICB] should pay for this. The person should not be expected to claim housing benefit.” This refers to situations where the person lives in specialist accommodation because of their mental health condition, and it is included as a requirement in their section 117 aftercare arrangement.

Complaint handling

16. Councils should have clear procedures to deal with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say they should investigate and resolve complaints quickly and efficiently.
17. Where a complaint is about more than one responsible body, each organisation must co-operate when handling the complaint. They must decide who will lead the process, share relevant information and give the complainant a coordinated response. (Reg 9, Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

What happened

18. Following detention under section 3 MHA, Ms D has a section 117 aftercare plan which includes housing. In May 2025 the Council arranged supported accommodation for Ms D. The Council paid the care costs direct to the supported housing provider and Ms D claimed Universal Credit for her housing costs. This included an added £20 weekly service charge. In March 2026 Ms D stopped receiving the extra amount and because of this went into arrears with the supported housing provider.
19. Ms C contacted the Council to ask for support with the housing payments. She received no response from either her informal request or her formal complaint. Ms D contacted her local MP and although she received an acknowledgement she did not receive a response to her complaint until she contacted the Ombudsmen.
20. Ms C says the supported housing provider threatened to evict Ms D for the arrears built up from the shortfall in the service charges. Because of this Ms C says Ms D paid some of the service charge from her weekly benefits leaving her with less money to spend on essential items. Although Ms C could shield Ms D from the threat of eviction she worried about the instability of Ms D’s accommodation.
21. The Council has accepted it should have funded the additional service charge and says it has now paid the outstanding arrears and Ms D has had no financial loss. The Council has also increased payments to the supported housing provider in the long term to include the service charges.

Was there fault causing injustice?

22. The Council has accepted it should have ensured Ms D’s accommodation was fully paid for. The Ombudsmen welcome the early acceptance of fault.
23. However the Council’s decision to make Ms D liable for the cost of her rent is fault. This is contrary to the legislation on section 117 aftercare and our guidance. Namely, where a person is eligible to receive a form of support through section 117, including specialist accommodation, the local authority and the ICB is responsible to provide that support free of charge. They cannot charge for it. We do not consider there is anything in the legislation, guidance or case law which would justify a local authority or ICB asking a person to fund (or partly fund) a service they are entitled to receive through section 117. This is regardless of whether the person has access to a private income or whether they are entitled to claim any state benefits.
24. That is not to say that health and social care organisations cannot support and encourage section 117 eligible people to apply for and use other benefits (and pay other bills) as part of their defined recovery plan. Agencies involved in section117 aftercare have discretion to promote a person's independence in ways that are appropriate for that individual. However, this does not change or override the organisations’ responsibilities to provide section 117 eligible services free of charge.
25. The law and statutory guidance recognises that secure housing is important to maintaining mental health. It is included in a section 117 aftercare plan to ensure as far as possible a person is not readmitted to hospital. The applying for, and the uncertainty around keeping benefits is stressful, the burden of which should not be on a person with section 117 aftercare housing rights. The change in benefits and the knock-on effect to Ms D and her mother shows why it is important for councils to meet all housing costs when housing is identified as an eligible need within a section 117 aftercare plan.
26. The Council’s failures caused Ms C and Ms D unnecessary stress and inconvenience and potential financial loss.
27. The Council is also at fault for failing to respond to Ms C’s complaint. Ms C had the added time and trouble of having to involve her MP and it was not until she approached the Ombudsmen that the Council contacted Ms C.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Although section 117 aftercare services is a joint provision from both the ICB and Council the fault I have found in this complaint mainly concerns the decisions and actions of the Council. The recommendations are therefore for the Council only.
29. Within one month of the final decision the Council should write to Ms C and Ms D to recognise the faults identified in this decision. It should also apologise for the impact of these failings. The Council should follow LGSCO’s  guidance on remedies on making an effective apology (at part 2.2 of its Guidance on Remedies).
30. Within one month of the final decision the Council should confirm to the relevant parties the full cost of Ms D’s rent and associated accommodation costs will be funded through section 117, and that section 117 funding will be used to pay the rent and associated accommodation costs. This should include the weekly base rent, fixed service charge and care costs. In liaison with Ms C, the Council should arrange (on its own or in partnership with the ICB) for section 117 funding to repay Ms D for the full amount she has paid privately to the placement for any service charges or additional rent charges she has paid.
31. Within one month of the final decision the Council should pay Ms C £250 as a symbolic, tangible acknowledgement of the injustice its failings caused her.
32. Within two months of the final decision the Council should review how it responded to Ms C’s complaint and produce an action plan to ensure as far as possible complaints are dealt with promptly and properly.
33. Within three months of the final decision the Council should produce a draft action plan to address the fault this investigation found. This should include a trigger during section 117 aftercare plan reviews to identify those people who are claiming benefits or paying privately for housing costs which the Council should be paying. The Council should include the ICB where appropriate when formulating the action plan. A final action plan should be produced within six months of the final decision.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence they have complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. I have now ended my investigation and closed the complaint based on the above agreed actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman