# Section 117 aftercare and how funding is assessed -- is the default a 50/50 split? **URL:** \ **Category:** Mental Health Act\ **Tags:** aftercare\ **Created:** [25 March 2025 13:08 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-aftercare-and-how-funding-is-assessed-is-the-default-a-50-50-split/3492 "2025-03-25T13:08:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ma068357](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@ma068357](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/ma068357)\ **Post date:** [25 March 2025 13:08 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-aftercare-and-how-funding-is-assessed-is-the-default-a-50-50-split/3492/1 "2025-03-25T13:08:14Z")
Good morning, Has anyone ever heard of a rule/law/caselaw that states that the default position on funding for a section 117 patient is default to 50% 50% please? I do not see the point of assessments if this is the case? I have never heard of it but it is being touted around the location I work in and wondered what peoples’ experiences are? Many thanks ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/jonathan/32/88_2.png) [@Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Jonathan)\ **Post date:** [26 March 2025 21:47 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-aftercare-and-how-funding-is-assessed-is-the-default-a-50-50-split/3492/2 "2025-03-26T21:47:00Z")
---
**Author:** ![Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/jonathan/32/88_2.png) [@Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Jonathan)\ **Post date:** [7 April 2025 14:18 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-aftercare-and-how-funding-is-assessed-is-the-default-a-50-50-split/3492/3 "2025-04-07T14:18:42Z")
I’m in the library today and, skimming through [David Lock, Leon Glenister and Hannah Gibbs, _NHS Law and Practice_ (2nd edn, LAG 2024)](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/David_Lock,_Leon_Glenister_and_Hannah_Gibbs,_NHS_Law_and_Practice_(2nd_edn,_LAG_2024)?id=140425-2221), noticed this at para 13.115: > There is no guidance which explains how the cost of providing aftercare services should be shared between a local authority and an ICB. A footnote states: “As far as the authors are aware.” It then sets out three ways in which the bodies could form agreements, and a fourth point states that in the absence of agreement on some or all of a patient’s s117 costs “the default position would be a 50/50 liability”, and further that one body could seek restitution from the other following the principles in [Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire CCG [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB)](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Surrey_County_Council_v_NHS_Lincolnshire_CCG_(2020)_EWHC_3550_(QB)). ---
**Author:** ![ma068357](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@ma068357](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/ma068357)\ **Post date:** [7 April 2025 16:05 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-aftercare-and-how-funding-is-assessed-is-the-default-a-50-50-split/3492/4 "2025-04-07T16:05:32Z")
Thank you for this… As I mentioned, it has come from nowhere to almost becoming the rule in Wrexham. I was unconvinced to be honest. Thank you again Mark A Jones Mental Health Practitioner