Story updated 26 June 2020
Health and social care secretary Matt Hancock is facing a legal challenge in relation to an ordinary residence decision that a council alleges is contrary to existing statutory guidance.
The secretary of state’s determination, which has now been published, relates to an ordinary residence dispute between councils in relation to responsibility for section 117 aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Worcestershire council, who was found to be responsible for the person’s care under the ruling, has challenged the determination.
A spokesperson for the council said: “The determination creates a level of uncertainty as to the legal position in identifying which local authority is responsible for meeting section 117 after-care duties and is contrary to the secretary of state’s own statutory guidance on this issue. We have ensured that the care provided has not been negatively impacted.”
The issue concerns who should be responsible for a person’s care when they are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 when ordinarily resident in a particular area, then move to a second area to receive care, from where they are then detained a subsequent time and discharged for aftercare.
Section 117(3) states that a person’s ordinary residence for the purposes of aftercare is determined by the place where they were ordinarily resident immediately prior to their detention. This applies even if they are discharged to a second area and then move to a third one.
However, the Care Act statutory guidance states that, if a person ordinarily resident in area A is discharged to area B, and is then detained again, the local authority in area B would become responsible for their aftercare.
The ruling in question says that the local authority in the area in which the person was ordinarily resident before their first detention – area A in the example above – would remain responsible for the person’s care even if they were detained again from area B.
The Department of Health and Social Care has said that the Care Act guidance no longer represents the secretary of state’s position and it would be updated when the Worcestershire case has concluded. Pending that, Hancock will not adjudicate on disputes concerning this aspect of ordinary residence.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
We unnecessarily waste far too much public money arguing because of budgets.
Seems clear the person should retain their address prior to a move to another area. Would be surprised if that was not the case. It is always about budgets look at the CCGs in Health constantly reviewing away people’s Free NHS care and dumping on Local Authorities.
Can I ask if an adult is placed in an ‘out of area’ social care placement.
When living at the placement their MH deteriorates resulting in being subject to a MH section 3 and placed in Hospital. Will be subjected to 117 aftercare and due to his out of area placement given notice he has now moved back into his originally authority.
Who is responsible for his 117 aftercare? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou
His OR has not changed, so it should be the original placing authority.