Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the actions of an AMHP acting on behalf of the Council, about information in his records, and that the Trust did not make reasonable adjustments in responding to his complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault, or add to the responses Mr B has already received.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the actions of an approved mental health professional (AMHP), acting on behalf of London Borough of Bexley (the Council), during a mental health act assessment. Mr B complains the AMHP relied on inaccurate information from the police, rather than making their own assessment; and did not tell Mr B’s relatives where he was. Mr B also complains about the information recorded about him by both Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) and the Council.
2. Mr B also complains that when writing to him, the Trust did not make reasonable adjustments for him, even though he told the Trust he needed these because he has dyslexia.
3. Mr B said the misinformation in his records was shared with other organisations. He said that this had a negative impact on him.
4. As a result of his complaint to the Ombudsmen, Mr B wants the Trust and Council to apologise for including incorrect information in his records. Mr B also seeks disciplinary action. Mr B also wants the Trust to apologise for not making reasonable adjustments when writing to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsmen provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe:

• it is unlikely they would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify their involvement, or
• it is unlikely they could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or
• they 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 information from Mr B, the Trust and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. I have also considered relevant law and guidance.
9. Mr B had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr B complained that when carrying out a mental health assessment, the AMHP wrongly relied on information provided by the police about Mr B’s mental state. Mr B said this information was incorrect and should not have been included in the assessment or his records.
11. The Mental Health Act (1983) (MHA) Code of Practice explains AMHPs must exercise their own judgement, based on social and medical evidence, when deciding whether to apply for a patient to be detained under the MHA. The AMHP should also interview someone in a suitable manner. The information I have seen indicates the AMHP interviewed Mr B and considered information from the police and two doctors as part of their assessment under the MHA.
12. This appears to be in line with the Code of Practice, which says the AMHP should take account of social and medical information. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault in the AMHP's consideration of information from the police, alongside medical information, in carrying out their assessment.
13. Mr B also complained the AMHP did not contact Mr B’s family members to tell them where he was. The MHA Code of Practice sets out the AMHP should try to identify the patient’s nearest relative, and take steps to inform them that an application for detention has been made. The Code of Practice also says the nearest relative need not be informed or consulted when the AMHP is not able to obtain enough information to establish who the nearest relative is.
14. In the documents provided, the AMHP has recorded they were unable to establish who Mr B’s nearest relative was. This was included in the Trust’s response to the complaint, which said Mr B had declined to provide details of any next of kin or emergency contact. Therefore, I have not seen any indications of fault in the AMHP not contacting Mr B’s nearest relative as they were unable to obtain the information. This appears to be in line with the MHA Code of Practice.
15. I recognise the situation was distressing for Mr B. However, based on the information available, it is unlikely an investigation would find fault by Council.
16. Regarding Mr B’s complaint about the Trust’s records, the Trust accepted the results of the urine test were incorrectly recorded, and that this incorrect information was sent to Mr B’s GP and included in his records. The Trust apologised to Mr B for this. Mr B told us he did not accept this apology and that he wanted a full admission of what went wrong. However, my view is the Trust has offered an appropriate apology. It is unlikely an investigation could add to the response Mr B has already received from the Trust on this point.
17. Mr B also complained that the Trust failed to make reasonable adjustments for him after he had told the Trust he had dyslexia. Mr B said he had asked the Trust not to use different text fonts and colours within documents, but said the Trust continued to do so.
18. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
19. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
20. The Equality Act places a requirement on public bodies to anticipate and prevent discrimination against people with disabilities. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
21. I have considered the available emails and letters between Mr B and the Trust. While I recognise Mr B said he had raised his concerns with the Trust about its use of different fonts and colours in its letters, the Trust has not addressed this in its responses to his complaint. I recognise this would have been frustrating for Mr B. However, my view is this injustice would not be sufficiently significant for us to investigate this issue alone.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council and the Trust, for the reasons explained in the Assessment section, above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman