Key Points
- A vulnerable teenager was threatened with eviction after Richmond Council failed to pay for her supported accommodation when she left hospital.
- The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the council had not created a proper section 117 aftercare plan for her.
- The teenager, referred to as Miss X, moved into the placement in April 2024 and became eligible for aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act at that point.
- Her placement provider later told her father that rent and bills had not been paid since May and that she could be evicted unless the debt was addressed.
- Her father said she was told she owed more than £10,000 in arrears.
- The watchdog ruled that the full cost of the placement should have been met by the council and the local NHS Integrated Care Board as part of her aftercare.
- The ombudsman told Richmond Council to apologise, confirm the placement would be funded through section 117, reimburse bills and pay the father £250.
Richmond (South London News) May 22, 2026, that a vulnerable teenager was threatened with eviction after Richmond Council failed to pay for her supported accommodation following her discharge from hospital. The story said the teenager, Miss X, had been sectioned in hospital in 2020 and was referred to Richmond’s children’s services in May 2023, when she was 17, to plan for her discharge.
As reported by the Standard, the council’s children’s and adult services discussed a proposed supported living placement over several months, but concerns were raised because the placement was expensive.
Miss X moved into the accommodation in April 2024, shortly before becoming eligible for aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act, and she turned 18 in May that year.
The report said adult services noted in an email that the move had started “without explicit funding confirmation” from the team. Children’s services and the NHS South West London Integrated Care Board initially split the cost of the placement until the end of April, including rent, bills and care.
What did the provider say?
The Standard reported that the placement provider later told Miss X’s father in September that nobody had paid her rent or bills since May.
According to the report, the provider said she was responsible for paying the debt and future costs, and warned she would be evicted if she did not agree.
Her father said she was asked to pay more than £10,000 in arrears. The council later reviewed the case in November and noted the Universal Credit allowance she was likely to receive, saying it would need to seek extra section 117 funding to cover the shortfall between that amount and the placement costs, backdated to May.
What did the ombudsman find?
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found Richmond Council had failed to create a proper section 117 aftercare plan to set out the free support Miss X needed from the council and NHS after leaving hospital. It said the council and the local NHS ICB had accepted that supported accommodation was part of her section 117 needs, meaning the full cost should have been met by them.
The report said the council was at fault for deciding not to include the placement costs in her aftercare package and for failing to pay those fees from May 2024. It also found Miss X was left financially worse off because she had to pay weekly utility costs herself.
The ombudsman said:
“Miss X is a vulnerable individual, entitled to s117 aftercare. The council failed to complete an adequate s117 aftercare plan for Miss X, before or after she left hospital.”
It added that the lack of clarity left Miss X, her family and professionals without a proper plan to help prevent her readmission to hospital.
What was the impact on the family?
The watchdog said the council’s failure to pay significant costs for a prolonged period put Miss X’s placement at risk and caused her father avoidable stress and frustration. The report described this as an injustice caused by the council’s failings.
The ombudsman told Richmond Council to apologise to Miss X’s father, confirm that the full cost of the placement would be funded through section 117, including any debt, and reimburse the bills she had paid. It also ordered the authority to pay the father £250 to recognise the injustice.
The report did not find fault with the NHS South West London Integrated Care Board, saying it relied on the information and costs submitted by the council. Richmond Council has been contacted for comment, according to the Standard.
Explore More Richmond Upon Thames Council News
Richmond Council Votes on Flock ALPR Contract Extension 2026
Richmond Council Plans 5,500 Homes, Jobs Boost by 2036 2026
Background of the development
Section 117 of the Mental Health Act provides aftercare for some people leaving hospital following detention for treatment, and the ombudsman said such services must be provided free of charge.
The case followed a wider finding that councils must complete clear aftercare planning when accommodation forms part of a person’s mental health support package.
The Standard’s report also said Miss X had been sectioned in 2020 and only came under Richmond’s discharge planning in 2023, before moving into supported accommodation in 2024.
The case shows how disputes over funding can emerge when children’s services, adult services and health bodies are all involved in arranging accommodation and care.
Prediction for affected readers
For vulnerable young people leaving hospital, this case may make councils and health bodies more cautious about confirming funding before placements begin. It may also push families and advocates to ask more detailed questions about who is paying for rent, bills and care before discharge arrangements are finalised.
For South London residents who rely on council-funded support, the likely effect is greater scrutiny of section 117 aftercare decisions and a stronger emphasis on written plans. For providers, the case may encourage earlier checks on funding status to reduce the risk of rent arrears and eviction threats.
