Summary: Mrs D complained about the decision by Croydon Council and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board to discharge her brother, Mr E, from S117 aftercare. We will not look at this complaint because a judge has already considered the issue.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complains about the care provided to her brother Mr E by Croydon Council (the Council) and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board (the ICB). Specifically she complains The Council and ICB discharged Mr E from S117 aftercare without following the correct process or procedure. Mr E then moved, and his new Council, X Council, challenged the decision. The Council and ICB reviewed the decision but maintained it had made the correct decision. It said Mr E did not have care needs which arose from his mental disorder so he was not eligible for S117 aftercare funding.
2. Mr E has been left without support after the discharge and it is only through the careful planning of his care and contacts Mrs D has been able to help him stay happy and healthy.
3. Mrs D believes Mr E needs trauma therapy and without this it is possible his mental health will deteriorate again. She wants an acknowledgement Mr E needs continuing care and reassurance the organisations will provide him with the support he needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015 a single team has considered these complaints acting for both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered written information provided to us by Mrs D, including her complaints to the Council and the ICB.
6. I also reviewed the submission to the Court made by X Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. Mrs D commented on my draft decision and I considered these before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr E was previously detained under S3 of the Mental Health Act (1983) (MHA). S117 of the MHA imposes a duty on health and social services to meet the health and or social care needs arising from, or related to, the persons mental disorder. This is known as S117 aftercare. You are entitled to section 117 aftercare if you have been in hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
10. The ICB shares a statutory duty with the Council to provide, or arrange, S117 aftercare services for eligible service users in the area.
11. The ICB reviewed Mr E and in April 2022 decided Mr E no longer had needs which arose from his mental disorder. This meant he was no longer eligible for S117 aftercare, and he was discharged.
12. X Council challenged the decision. The Court of Protection asked the ICB and the Council to review the decision in December 2022.
13. The ICB reviewed the decision with the appropriate professionals and confirmed in March 2023 its decision to withdraw S117 stood.
14. X Council asked for a judicial review of the Council and ICB’s decision to withdraw Mr E’s S117 aftercare funding.
15. A judge looked at the case and decided on 28 November 2023 that Mr E “did not have a need for aftercare arising from or as a result of his mental disorder” and that the ICB and Council had considered the statutory criteria and properly addressed the concerns. The judgement added the Council and the ICB “properly took into account evidence relevant to the decision to discharge.”
16. The Courts have already considered the issue at the heart of this complaint; whether Mr E should have been discharged from s117 aftercare or not. Because of this we therefore should not look at this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsmen will not look at a complaint where the issues have already been considered by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman