At Sydney Mitchell, we have experience in assisting families of clients who have been hospitalised under the Mental Health Act.
These individuals may be entitled to free assistance and support upon their discharge, as provided by Section 117 of the Mental Health Act, commonly known as Section 117 Aftercare.
What is section 117 funding?
Section 117 funding is intended to provide free aftercare for people with mental health conditions, who have previously been detained in a mental health hospital setting. To be entitled to this non means tested funding, a person must have been detained under specific sections of the Mental Health Act 1983, the most common being section 3.
The package of care is jointly funded by the NHS, via the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) and local authority responsible for the area where the person was a resident immediately before they were detained.
The intention behind making this type of care funding available, is to ensure appropriate care can be provided in a community setting and by doing so, help to prevent re-admission into hospital. This aftercare can include:
- Monitoring and maintaining a person’s health, ensuring they receive necessary medical attention and support tailored to their specific health needs.
- Social care and employment services offering support with daily living activities, and helping them find and retain employment.
- Supported accommodation that offer varying levels of support. Enabling individuals to live independently while still having access to assistance when needed.
- Services that are tailored to meet a person’s unique personal and cultural requirements designed to help the individual’s mental condition and contribute to reducing the risk of their mental condition deteriorating further or re-admission to hospital.
Care funding will continue until the local authority and the ICB have jointly decided that the care is no longer needed, or that the type of care required at that point, is no longer related to the reason the person was initially sectioned.
Case study
An example of this would be where a person was sectioned under section 3 of the MHA for treatment for a schizophrenic episode and is subsequently discharged to their home with a package of care funded under section 117. Several years later, they suffer a catastrophic stroke and are in hospital for several weeks.
When they are discharged to a suitable placement, the section 117 funding may stop as the primary reason for care has changed and the person may go on to be regarded as self-funding their future care, or they may be assessed as being eligible for continuing healthcare.
Court of Appeal
When ICBs and local authorities becomes involved in paying for care, there are often complications and disputes about where the brunt of the funding should fall, as a recent case illustrates.
A mentally ill man who had spent almost half his life detained in psychiatric hospitals subsequently became the focus of a row between two local authorities over which of them should cover the significant cost of paying for his care after his discharge into the community.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal gave useful guidance on the correct approach to the concept of ‘residence’ under the Mental Health Act 1983 and ruled that the cost of the man’s aftercare should be borne by Wiltshire Council on the basis that he was born in that county and was living there when he was first committed to hospital.
The man, who was in his 40s, was made the subject of a hospital order in 1995 and was not discharged until 2009, on condition that he resided under 24 hour supervision in a hostel in Hertfordshire. He was recalled to hospital in 2011 but discharged again in 2014 to the same hostel, where he continued to live.
Wiltshire Council argued that the man’s aftercare costs should fall on Hertfordshire County Council on the basis that he ‘resided’ in the hostel within the meaning of Section 117 of the Act. It was also submitted that the man considered Hertfordshire to be his home and that he had no wish to return to Wiltshire.
However, the Court noted that there was no dispute that the man was ‘resident’ in Wiltshire when he was first discharged from hospital and that it was ‘impossible to define’ a moment thereafter when his residence might have shifted to Hertfordshire. There had been an unbroken chain of causation and the terms of his conditional discharge still derived from the original 1995 hospital order.
How we can help you?
If you are having difficulties with your local council over the cost of care for a relative or family member, we may be able to help you realise a better outcome.
We will be able to provide guidance and advice, often at a time of crisis for you and your family by assessing your current situation and steer you through the maze of conflicting information you are likely to be receiving.
We can provide clarity and peace of mind by representing you and your relative at assessments and providing support and guidance for you throughout the complex and often stressful process ensuring that you or your relative’s case is put forward in the best way possible to ensure they receive any funding to which they may be entitled.
Talk to our experienced Private Client team on 0121 746 3300 or complete our online enquiry form at the top of the page.
Find out more about the team
