London borough failed to complete adequate s117 aftercare plan for vulnerable young person, Ombudsman finds

Following an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, the council was recommended to confirm that the full cost of the young person’s rent and associated accommodation costs will be funded through s117.

The man behind the complaint, Mr Y, complained that the London Borough and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board did not pay the rent for his daughter’s specialist accommodation, despite it being part of her section 117 aftercare needs.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said that following a lengthy mental health admission under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, Miss X had moved to a supported living placement in the spring of 2024. Miss X was 17 at the time and turned 18 a month later.

Miss X became eligible for aftercare under section 117 of the MHA when she left hospital. The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board (the ICB) were responsible for ensuring Miss X received appropriate aftercare.

Mr Y, Miss X’s father, complained that, prior to Miss X’s transfer from hospital, the council and the ICB failed to agree how they would fund the Placement when Miss X became an adult.

Mr Y said this was despite plans for the placement to be a long-term one, and despite Miss X’s eligibility for s117 aftercare. Meanwhile, Mr Y complained that, after Miss X turned 18, no one took any action to ensure the Placement was properly funded.

Mr Y said that, as a result, no one paid anything toward the costs of Miss X’s rent, bills or care from the date of her 18th birthday. By the time of his complaint to the Ombudsman, in December 2024, this remained the case.

Mr Y said this led the placement to:

• ask Miss X to pay over £10,000 in arrears,
• sign a tenancy agreement which she would not be able to afford, and
• threaten to terminate Miss X’s placement.

Analysing the case, the Ombudsman said: “In its response to our enquiries the council said it does not have a s117 aftercare plan for Miss X. The ICB also acknowledged the “lack of a clear s117 Plan”. This is fault.

“[…] The eligibility criteria for support under s117 are broad and the types of support which can be provided are varied. If something is necessary because of the person’s mental disorder and it will help prevent their readmission to hospital, it should be provided through s117. Because of this, each s117 aftercare plan should be bespoke and should be based on a comprehensive, robust assessment of the totality of the person’s needs. Such an assessment did not happen in Miss X’s case.”

The Ombudsman added: “Because of this we are left with an incomplete understanding of what professionals considered Miss X needed because of her mental health condition and to prevent her readmission to hospital.”

The report noted that in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, both the council and the ICB have accepted that supported accommodation is part of Miss X’s s117 needs.

Concluding the case, the Ombudsman said: “Miss X is a vulnerable individual, entitled to s117 aftercare. The council failed to complete an adequate s117 aftercare plan for Miss X, before or after she left hospital. This left everyone – Miss X, her family, professionals and other stakeholders – with a lack of clarity about what she needed to help prevent her readmission to hospital.

“On balance, we consider that, had the fault not occurred, Miss X’s accommodation would have been included in her s117 aftercare plan. All s117 services must be provided free of charge and there is no discretion to ask people to pay a contribution toward the cost. The council did not pay significant costs for Miss X’s placement for a prolonged period. This put Miss X’s placement at risk and caused Mr Y avoidable stress and frustration, which is an injustice. It has led to Miss X paying a weekly fee which she should not have had to pay.”

The Ombudsman did not find fault with the ICB as it did not make the decisions it found fault with.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Write to Mr Y to acknowledge the fault identified in the decision.
• Confirm to the relevant parties that the full cost of Miss Y’s rent and associated accommodation costs will be funded through s117, and that s117 funding will be used to pay the outstanding rent and associated accommodation costs arrears. This should include the weekly base rent, fixed service charge and utility (water, electricity, internet and maintenance) costs, which are all compulsory costs under the tenancy.
• Arrange (on its own or in partnership with the ICB) for s117 funding to reimburse Miss Y for the full amount she has paid privately to the Placement for utility costs to date. This arrangement should remain in place at least until there is a comprehensive review of Miss Y’s s117 aftercare and a new, detailed s117 aftercare plan.
• Pay Mr Y £250 as a symbolic, tangible acknowledgement of the injustice its failings caused him.
• Produce an action plan to address the fault the investigation found.

The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson