Continuing the discussion from Case (Complaint about MHA assessment not upheld). Medway Council (24 010 714) [2025] MHLO 6 (LGSCO):
A lot of these cases that have been put forward to the Ombudsman appear not to progress to the next stage of an investigation - Miss X’s case sounds in my view worth further examination.
What will the Ombudsman consider as a case / complaint worth investigating?
Is putting in a complaint via the Ombudsman worth the time and effort?
Please provide reasons.
The complaint:
“Miss X complains about Medway Council (the Council) and NHS South West London ICB (the ICB). She says staff forcibly entered her home and illegally removed her. She says she was transported to hospital in a police style van.
“Miss X says she was traumatised by the events and she is seeking compensation”.
The assessment:
In this complaint, the two Section 12 doctors were not working for the NHS Trust who ultimately decided to detain Miss X under Section 2. The ICB was therefore responsible for those doctors because it held core responsibility for Miss X.
People who have been detained under the MHA can apply for a hearing to the First Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) if they disagree with the decision. The Tribunal must discharge the person from detention if, on the day of the hearing, the person does not meet the criteria for detention.
What relevance does the tribunal have in Miss X being unlawfully detained and traumatised by her treatment?
The findings:
The Council’s complaint response recognised it would have been distressing for Miss X to have different people entering her home for the MHA assessment and when the team arrived to take her to hospital. However, it explained that family members let them in on both occasions. The staff were mental health professionals that attended to ensure Miss X’s safety. There is no indication of forcible entry to Miss X’s home. The Council has also explained the transport used was a non‐identifiable vehicle to protect Miss X’s privacy. I consider we are unlikely to find fault by the Council in this regard.
Miss X could have appealed the decision to detain her. The records I have seen do not show if the AMHP explained appeal rights to Miss X during the MHA assessment. However, records show hospital staff explained these when she arrived at hospital and discussed with her again during her stay. Investigation into the information the AMHP provided is unlikely to achieve more. The records show Miss X was aware of her right to appeal to tribunal but she decided not to. It would have been reasonable for her to use this to challenge her detention.
This part - ok - if you are going to take someone from within their home - should you not consult the actual person you are trying to enforce the law upon? The idea of ‘forcible entry’ not being legitimate simply because someone close to the family allowed them access should not change the fact that this person was taken without any knowledge. How would any member of society value being in this situation?
It says - ‘to have different people entering her home for the MHA assessment’ it’s not clear what relevance this has on the outcome? The complaint was not about her having different people enter her home - it was the fact people entered her home and took her away. Not familiarity.
The language here is trying to deflect blame. It is showing that they were trying to do all of this e.g. ‘The staff were mental health professionals ensure her safety’ or ‘using a non-identifiable vehicle to protect Miss X’s privacy ‘- in writing and labels that is true - in as much as a police officer is an officer - but does that mean they actually acted in that way? What did they say or do during this assessment? What does Miss X say about how they (staff) conducted themselves?
It is confirmed a non licensed vehicle was used to take Miss X away - still here it is phrased in a way to show that it was a professional transport for the benefit of the person in question. Should that not be questioned further? Why not call an ambulance or a police vehicle - would these not also protect Miss X’s privacy rather than using a large police-style van? Sounds deeply unprofessional and negligent; if let’s say Miss X was actually have a crisis of any kind. Who was with Miss X in the transport? Was it emergency staff trained to handle someone lacking capacity? It’s highly questionable what has occurred here.
Don’t see again how after she has been sectioned that her being read her rights is the same as someone not reading their rights just before their human rights are under the potential to be taken? If she was made aware of them right before things escalated - could that have made a difference to the overall outcome? However, the AMHP’s documents about this have been ignored - not that it would make a difference as they can write whatever they want in it - but to not even bother checking what they wrote sounds incompetent from the Ombudsman.
Then at the end it tries to impart another deflection to the actual issue - somehow bringing Miss X deciding against her hearing almost to legitimise what the complaint is about. When in reality it has no bearing. Miss X did not complain about her non committal decision to have her section rescinded after her human rights were taken - it was the manner in which she was brought in when she had her rights still intact. That is what needs to be investigated in detail. The approach.
How she was taken from her home to the hospital and then sectioned. There is not enough detail here at all. It’s greatly one-sided using the formal definitions of what the process is and how it is carried out - then that framework image is then imprinted into the complaint in order to wedge the bumpy shapes of Miss X’s experience into it - so it makes perfect sense; a fit - therefore it would be acceptable from the outset for anyone looking in.
Probably missed a few things out that I haven’t had time to understand in depth like why another AMHP came back to finalise the section etc - but this is just the gist of my impression of what I read of the complaint.
Judging by this analysis - I probably answered my own question.