Summary of our decision
Jump to
- Having considered all the available evidence related to Miss M’s complaint, including her recollections and views, and taking account of the legal and clinical advice we have received, we have reached the following decisions.
- We have found evidence of maladministration by the Trust and the Council in that:
- the delivery of aftercare services for Mrs M under section 117 of the Act, and discharge from that provision, was not properly considered in accordance with relevant legislation and guidance;
- the explanation later given to Miss M about this was inadequate and contradictory; and
- the procedure that was followed in Mrs M’s discharge from the CMHT in 2005 was not in accordance with relevant guidance.
- However, we do not consider that these failures were the cause of significant injustice to Mrs M or Miss M. We see no reason to conclude that failure by the Trust or the Council contributed to Mrs M’s decline in health, or that she failed to receive medical or social care services for which a need was identified. Although Mrs M had been detained under section 3 of the Act in 1989, we do not conclude that the provision of residential care in 2004 should have been funded under section 117 of the Act.
- We do not find fault in the arrangements for Mrs M’s admission to the Care Home, the care provided after Mrs M’s admission, and the transfer of her care to the Council’s ASC team or the assessment of needs by the Council. Therefore we do not uphold Miss M’s complaints.
