# Section 117/restricted FTT -- no LA will take responsibility **URL:** \ **Category:** Mental Health Act\ **Tags:** aftercare\ **Created:** [22 January 2025 09:59 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-restricted-ftt-no-la-will-take-responsibility/3136 "2025-01-22T09:59:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**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:** [22 January 2025 12:33 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-restricted-ftt-no-la-will-take-responsibility/3136/7 "2025-01-22T12:33:03Z")
> [@Lawyermentalhealth](#): > > believe that the responsibility for providing aftercare under Section 117 falls to the council in whose area the client was ordinarily resident before their recall to hospital. > My questions are as follows: > > 1. is my position correct We discussed this in a previous topic at [Conditional discharge recall and s117 responsibility](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/conditional-discharge-recall-and-s117-responsibility/2004) and eventually came to the same conclusion as you about the meaning of the Supreme Court decision. However, in the older case of [R (Wiltshire Council) v Hertfordshire CC [2014] EWCA Civ 712](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(Wiltshire_Council)_v_Hertfordshire_CC_(2014)_EWCA_Civ_712) the Court of Appeal decided that a residence condition meant the place of residence was not voluntary and so the patient was not “resident” there. Maybe the “recall” local authority will argue that the Supreme Court’s comments in _Worcestershire_ about voluntariness were just _obiter_, and that the “original” local authority again has responsibility. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/section-117-restricted-ftt-no-la-will-take-responsibility/3136)._