Summary: Mr B has complained about the delay by a Trust, Council and Integrated Care Board in discharging him from section 117 of the Mental Health Act aftercare. Mr B said the delay led to distress, and anxiety. We will not investigate this complaint as, although there was a delay in informing Mr B of the discharge, he has received an apology and we would not add anything further by investigating the case.

The complaint

1. Mr B has complained about the delay by a Central and North West NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust), London Borough of Hillingdon (the Council) and Integrated Care Board (the ICB) in discharging him from s.117 of the Mental Health Act aftercare. Mr B said the delay led to distress, self-harm and anxiety. He would like an apology and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

2. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

3. I considered evidence from the Council, Trust and ICB. I also considered written evidence from Mr B.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In November 2023 Mr B wrote to the Council and asked it to discharge him from s.117 aftercare. He then complained in February 2024 that he had not yet been discharged.
5. Section 117 of the MHA states a person may be eligible for aftercare services, if they are intended to meet a need that arises from or relates to a mental health problem and reduces the risk of the person’s mental health condition getting worse.
6. Section 117 of the MHA states a person may be eligible for aftercare services, if they are intended to meet a need that arises from or relates to a mental health problem and reduces the risk of the person’s mental health condition getting worse. Quite often the Trust provides these mental health services.
7. The Trust, ICB and the Council had a meeting in March 2024 and decided to discharge Mr B, as requested.
8. The Council wrote to Mr B a month later to confirm it had discharged him and that he could come back if he wished to receive s.117 aftercare in the future.
9. The Council also apologised in the delay in confirming to Mr B that it had discharged him.

Analysis

10. The organisations acted appropriately by meeting to discuss Mr B’s request. They then complied with his request and informed him of the discharge although the process did take several months.
11. Therefore, although there was a delay in writing to Mr B to confirm he was discharged, the organisations complied with his request and an investigation would be unlikely to find a serious injustice to Mr B caused by any delay. In addition, the Council responded appropriately by apologising for the delay.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint as the organisations acted appropriately in complying with Mr B’s request and apologised to him for the delay in informing him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman