| Display title | Durham County Council (24 001 522) [2025] MHLO 4 (LGSCO) |
| Default sort key | Durham County Council (24 001 522) (2025) MHLO 4 (LGSCO) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,629 |
| Page ID | 16278 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 11:16, 7 March 2025 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 10:17, 12 May 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 1 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The patient had telephoned to decline further support from the mental health team, following which the trust purported to “discharge” him from section 117 after-care. When, five years later, he found out about the discharge he complained to the trust, which accepted that he should have been fully involved and informed but stated that s117 “may be withdrawn if the health organisation believe you no longer need it”. The Ombudsman noted that this was not in line with section 117(2) which requires the local authority and ICB to provide after-care until they are jointly satisfied that the person no longer needs it. The council, trust and ICB were recommended to carry out an urgent review of the patient’s after-care needs, this time involving appropriate consultation, and either to provide them or discharge the duty properly. |