Section 117 accommodation for patient excluded from co-owned matrimonial home

Hi everyone,

I’m desperately trying to advocate for a family member (let’s call them X) who was detained under MHA s.3 and is now entitled to s.117 aftercare. I am acting as their advocate now and trying to get support where I will need to be speaking with their social worker. For anonymous purposes I am deliberately avoiding using identifiable information

For complete transparency, I have also used AI to help structure and format this post as I have difficulties with typing. I have ensured that all facts are accurate and used speech to text for most of this writing except where AI has helped me with formatting.

X has been in and out of mental health hospitals for several years, but this is their first time being detained on a Section 3. Recently, they have separated from their spouse in the last month. The spouse has historically provided excellent care and support, meaning X is now facing the need to find their own independence and appropriate living situation for the very first time during this period of recovery.

X is currently totally excluded from their co-owned matrimonial home because the assessed risks related to their mental disorder make it unsafe for the people living there, specifically their separated spouse and their minor child.

The local authority/ICB are pushing back hard on funding supported/assisted living accommodation. They are focusing on the fact that X technically owns a share of the property and seem resistant to funding this level of specialist support. I am concerned they will force this family member into selling their asset.

This seems wrong to me because the whole reason they need this level of specialist accommodation is directly linked to their mental disorder, the need to manage risk, and the sudden loss of their primary support system (the separation) which is necessary to prevent readmission (the core S117 test). They have no other safe place to go that meets their needs.

My main questions for the forum are:

How do I counter the argument that this level of supported / specialist accommodation is unnecessary? Given the history of instability and the sudden need for independence, how can I best argue that supported/assisted living is a necessary aftercare service because of the specific risk situation and the need to establish independence to prevent relapse?

Does the fact that they co-own the property (which is occupied by the spouse and minor child) legally weaken the case for a fully funded s.117 accommodation package?

If anyone knows of any case law or specific guidance (beyond Who Pays and Worcestershire) that deals with a s.117 patient who is excluded from a family home with a minor, that would be incredibly helpful as I begin to support my relative throughout this process of Accessing appropriate aftercare.

Thanks so much for any advice. This is really stressful and I want to support them as best as I can.

These are immensely complex issues and you really need the assistance of an experienced MH lawyer. These issues could and should be raised and debated in a Tribunal. Either X or the nearest relative could seek free advice about the best way to proceed.

1 Like

Agree with the previous response that these are complex issues which cannot be adequately responded to on this forum, but to add that a Tribunal won’t have any authority to make decisions regarding s117 aftercare. The Tribunal only considers whether or not to continue detention (or other restrictions under the MHA).

Sounds like there are two issues at play here. On the one hand, the local authority cannot lawfully argue that they will not provide necessary s117 aftercare because a person has sufficient assets (financial or bricks-and-mortar), but on the other hand there may be a dispute regarding whether or not the person does in fact need supported accommodation (sometimes referred to unofficially as “accommodation plus”) to avoid the risk of readmission. This would be a difference of opinion regarding the person’s actual level of needs for aftercare, and is much more of a nuanced issue.