Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to withdraw Section 117 aftercare services from the complainant. This is because the complaint relates to matters that occurred more than 12 months ago. These matters are late for our consideration.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Ms X, is complaining about Devon County Council (the Council) and Devon Partnership NHS Trust (the Trust). Specifically, Ms X is complaining about the decision, in April 2012, to withdraw free aftercare services to which she had been entitled under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 following her detention under that Act in 2004.
2. Mr Y, a solicitor, has brought this complaint to the Ombudsmen on Ms X’s behalf.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen 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).
4. The Ombudsmen cannot investigate late complaints unless they decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsmen about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4).)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In reaching this draft view, I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Trust. I also considered relevant legislation and guidance. In addition, I considered comments from all parties on this decision statement before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In March 2012, the Trust reviewed Ms X’s situation as it had determined that she had not accessed mental health services since “at least” 2006.
7. As part of this review, the Trust wrote to Ms X on 23 March 2012 to invite her to attend a review meeting to discuss her entitlement to Section 117 aftercare services.
8. When Ms X did not respond to this letter, the Trust says an officer contacted her to discuss her situation. The Trust says Ms X advised that she did not wish to participate in a review meeting as she felt she no longer required input from mental health services. The Trust has acknowledged that no record of this call exists.
9. However, on 4 April 2012, the Trust wrote to Ms X again. This letter refers to Ms X’s conversation with the Trust officer by saying that “you have recently been contacted by a mental health worker, declining the offer of a review meeting as you feel you no longer require any input from mental health services.” It is my view that, on balance of probabilities, the conversation occurred as described by the Trust in this letter.
10. The letter of 4 April 2012 also advised Ms X that the Council and Primary Care Trust (which at that time shared responsibility for Section 117 aftercare) were satisfied she no longer required access to aftercare services.
11. The evidence I have seen suggests Ms X was advised of the decision to withdraw Section 117 aftercare services in April 2012. I have seen no evidence that Ms X complained to the Trust or Council at that time, or at any point until Mr Y complained to the Trust on her behalf in November 2020. This was over eight years after the decision to withdraw Section 117 aftercare services was made.
12. Mr Y then complained to PHSO in March 2021. By this point, almost nine years had passed since the events Ms X is complaining about occurred.
13. I note that Ms X was readmitted to hospital in September 2012. I recognise this may have had an impact on her ability to complain at that time. Nevertheless, it was reasonable, in my view, to expect Ms X to raise any concerns about the decision and how it was made with the Ombudsmen much sooner than she did. I can see no good reason to investigate this complaint at such a late stage.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have decided not to investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because it relates to care provided to Ms X more than 12 months ago. The complaint is late, therefore, and I have seen no good reason to investigate these matters now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman