Another s.117 victory
Salil Kumar, Mental Health Executive
“We have acted for a client whose section 117 status had been unlawfully removed by his MDT as the only reasons documented on the form for removing section 117 were to state that the client had, “continued to improve and that he was co-operative with his care plan the majority of the time.”
These reasons are however not lawful reasons for the removal of a patient’s section 117 aftercare as section 117 should only be removed when the patient is no longer in need of aftercare services that arise from his mental illness. Our client was still continuing to receive 45 hours one to one support in order to meet the needs arising from his mental illness despite the section 117 being removed by the MDT.
Our client was concerned that the Local Authority would charge him for the services that are provided to him as his section 117 status had been removed. We wrote to the Local Authority and their solicitors to argue that our client’s section 117 status was unlawfully removed and that it should be reinstated.
We have now been successful in having our client’s section 117 status reinstated and so our client does not have to worry about being charged by the Local Authority for the one to one support services that he receives.”
All posts by Salil Kumar
- C of P Pilots. Get them wrong and it could cost!
- S. 17 leave and the potential for an unlawful deprivation of liberty
- Conditional Discharge and DoL – RB corrected (almost)
- DoLs and conditional discharge
- Another s.117 victory
- The compliant incapacitated patient
- Salil writes about nearest relatives
- Compliant incapacitated P: MCA / DOLs or MHA?