Judicial review proceedings issued against NHS trust over lack of consultation on mental health services redesign

The Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust is facing a judicial review challenge from a claimant who alleges the trust failed to involve or consult service users on plans to redesign its community mental health services.

The claimant, who has been using mental health services for 25 years and says he is likely to require support from the services subject to redesign for the rest of his life, is bringing grounds that argue the public sector equality duty and the National Health Service Act 2006 have been breached.

The trust is in the process of changing its services across Bolton, Wigan, Salford, Trafford and Manchester, which it has dubbed the 'Greater Manchester Community Mental Health Transformation'.

According to the trust's website, the changes will improve service users' and carers' experiences of mental health care and access and will involve the implementation of teams that will develop a "new integrated community mental health model delivered in local communities".

However, the claimant, Craig Hamilton, alleges the trust failed to involve or consult service users in the decision-making and failed to invite them to - or make them aware of - a co-design process which took place at events in January and February.

Hamilton is being represented by solicitors at Irwin Mitchell, who sent a pre-action protocol letter to the trust in February asking it to review its process.

He is now pursuing a judicial review on the following three grounds:

1. Failure to involve service users in breach of Section 242(1B) of the National Health Service Act 2006
2. Breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty Sections 149(1)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010
3. Breach of the duty to have regard to the effect of its decisions

Section 242(1B) of the 300 Act says:

(1B) Each relevant English body must make arrangements, as respects health services for which it is responsible, which secure that users of those services, whether directly or through representatives, are involved (whether by being consulted or provided with information, or in other ways) in—

(a) the planning of the provision of those services,

(b) the development and consideration of proposals for changes in the way those services are provided, and

(c) decisions to be made by that body affecting the operation of those services.

The relevant section of the 2010 act reads:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

Hamilton's solicitor, Gerard Devaney-Khodja of Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, said: "We wrote to the trust earlier this year but they've failed to do what we've asked of them. We've now applied for a judicial review, as we strongly believe the trust is in clear breach of its statutory duty by not ensuring there is adequate public involvement in the changes.

"People with mental health issues are some of the most vulnerable in society and we should be doing our best to provide them with the support they need."

Commenting on his claim, Hamilton said: "When I heard the trust was planning a redesign, I was really worried, as were many other people who attempt to access mental health services in the area, particularly as there has been a lack of inclusion of service users in the process.

"It's been a very distressing time, as we feel like we're being totally disregarded. I've experienced difficulties with being able to access appropriate treatment and I want to ensure those same difficulties aren't recreated in the new service."

Responding to the legal challenge, Andrew Maloney, Deputy Chief Executive at Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, said: "Service user and carer engagement is a key component of any service change or service design project, and at GMMH we are committed to engaging with, understanding the experiences of, and co-producing services with the communities we serve in a meaningful way. We cannot comment further at this time due to the open legal challenge."

Adam Carey