The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) have released new guidance to tackle common and repeated mistakes seen in the aftercare of patients receiving support under the Mental Health Act.

PHSO and LGSCO work together on complaints that involve both health and social care bodies. The guidance brings together common themes seen in their joint investigation work. It includes practical recommendations for councils and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to make improvements and avoid the mistakes of others. From July 2022 Integrated Care Boards will replace CCGs, for better joined up health care. This guidance will support practitioners in delivering a continuity of care during this transition.

Councils and CCGs have a joint responsibility to provide or arrange free aftercare for adults, young people, and children until they are satisfied the person no longer needs it. These responsibilities are set out in the Mental Health Act Code of Practice. They aim to reduce the risk of worsening the person's mental health condition and reduce the risk of needing further hospital admission.

Through a series of case studies, the guidance draws attention to recurring mistakes seen in the joint investigation work of PHSO and LGSCO when there are misunderstandings between a council and CCG about their collective responsibilities; these include:

• care planning for patients
• funding for aftercare
• accommodation needs 
• ending mental health aftercare

Rob Behrens, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, said:

"The cases outlined in the guidance demonstrate the traumatic and lasting impact mistakes can have on patients and their families when council and CCGs fail to manage mental health aftercare effectively."  

 

"When a person receives treatment under the Mental Health Act, they are vulnerable. Organisations responsible for their care must deliver the best service possible to maximise the patient's recovery."

 

"The work of the Joint Working Team is vital in ensuring that the organisations involved are held to account when mistakes are made across the health and social care sectors."

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

"Where complex cases span multiple organisations and bodies, it is all the more important for those bodies to get things right. We've issued this guidance not only to share learning from the complaints we have received, but also to highlight to councils and CCGs our joint working team's role in investigating those cases.

 

"I hope practitioners in this area will take on board the learning it contains and apply it to their practice to ensure the people in their care are properly supported."

es de el en fr it nl pl pt ro

Furthermore, in the context of a request for removal of thumbnails from the results of an image search, only the informative value of the images in their own right should be taken into consideration

TU and RE brought an action against Google LLC seeking to obtain, on the one hand, the dereferencing of certain links displayed in searches made using the search engine operated by Google LLC, which lead to online third-party articles identifying TU and RE and, on the other, cessation of the display of the photographs accompanying one of those articles in the form of preview images (thumbnails). TU works in a position of responsibility, or is involved, in various companies which provide financial services. RE was TU’s cohabiting partner and, until May 2015, held general commercial power of representation in one of those companies. Three articles appeared on the website g-net which criticised and expressed doubts as to the reliability of the investment model of several of those companies, one of which featured four photographs showing TU and RE driving luxury cars, in a helicopter and in front of a charter plane, thereby suggesting that the applicants were enjoying a life of externally financed luxury. TU and RE requested Google LLC to de-reference the articles in question, which, in their view, contain a number of incorrect allegations and defamatory opinions based on false statements, and to remove the thumbnails from the list of search results.

The German Federal Court of Justice referred two questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The first concerns the specific feature of the function performed by search engines, and the tension that this creates between the fundamental rights laid down in Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 1 in a scenario which has not yet been examined by the Court, that is to say a situation in which the data subject challenges the truth of the processed data and requests, for that reason, the de-referencing of links to the content published by third parties in which those data appear. The second question concerns the need, in examining a request for removal of thumbnails from the results of an image search to take into account the content of the web page containing the images in question.

In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Pitruzzella, as a preliminary step, analyses the Court’s case-law 2 on the obligations incumbent on the operator of a search engine and identifies four established points in respect of the matter.

bg es de el en fr it nl pl pt

Contract by electronic means: in order to be validly bound by such a contract, consumers must clearly understand on the basis only of the words appearing on the ordering button that as soon they click on that button they will be under an obligation to pay

Fuhrmann-2 is a company governed by German law and the proprietor of the Goldener Anker hotel in Krummhörn-Greetsiel (Germany). The rooms of that hotel can be rented, inter alia, through the www.booking.com website, an online accommodation booking platform. On 19 July 2018, B., a consumer, visited that website to search for hotel rooms in Krummhörn-Greetsiel for the period from 28 May 2019 to 2 June 2019. The search results displayed included rooms in the Goldener Anker hotel. B. then clicked on the image corresponding to that hotel, whereupon the available rooms were displayed together with additional information relating, inter alia, to the facilities and prices offered by that hotel for the selected period. Having decided to book four double rooms at that hotel, B. clicked on the ‘I’ll reserve’ button and entered his personal details and the names of the individuals accompanying him, before clicking on a button labelled with the words ‘complete booking’. B. did not appear at the Goldener Anker hotel on 28 May 2019.

Fuhrmann-2 invoiced B., in accordance with its general terms and conditions, for cancellation fees of €2 240, setting him a time limit of five working days for settlement of that sum. B. did not pay the sum claimed. Fuhrmann-2 therefore brought an action for recovery of that sum before the Local Court, Bottrop (Germany).

That court asked the Court of Justice whether, in the context of an ordering process relating to the conclusion of a distance contract by electronic means, for the purpose of determining whether a form of words displayed on the ordering button or on a similar function, such as the formulation ‘complete booking’, is a formulation ‘corresponding’ to the words ‘order with obligation to pay’, only the words that appear on that button should be taken into account, or whether the overall circumstances of the ordering process should also be taken into consideration.

In its judgment delivered today, the Court notes that, according to Directive 2011/83, 1 where a distance contract is concluded by electronic means through an ordering process and entails an obligation on the part of the consumer to pay, the trader must, first, provide that consumer, directly before the placing of the order, with the essential information relating to the contract and, secondly, explicitly inform that consumer that, in placing the order, he or she is bound by an obligation to pay.

bg es da de et el en fr hr it lv lt mt nl pl pt fi sv

The Regulation on Air Passenger Rights does not undermine the principle of complete and exclusive sovereignty of a State over its airspace

Three air passengers made a single reservation with Lufthansa, via a travel agency, for a flight from Brussels (Belgium) to San José (United States), with a stopover in Newark (United States).

The entirety of the flight was operated by United Airlines, a carrier established in the United States. The three passengers arrived at their final destination with a delay of 223 minutes. The company Happy Flights, now holder of their claim, lodged a claim for compensation against United Airlines before Brussels Company Court (Dutch-speaking), arguing that the Regulation on Air Passenger Rights was applicable. 1

In its judgment delivered today, the Court of Justice recalls first of all that a flight with one or more connections which was the subject of a single reservation constitutes a whole for the purposes of the right of passengers to compensation provided for by EU law. The applicability of the Regulation on Air Passenger Rights is to be assessed with regard to the place of the flight’s initial departure and the place of the final destination of that flight.

Moreover, the Court specifies that the non-EU air carrier (United Airlines), which does not have a contract of carriage with the passengers but which operated the flight, may be liable to pay the passengers compensation. The carrier which, in the course of its passenger carriage activities, decides to perform a particular flight, including fixing its itinerary, constitutes the operating air carrier. That carrier is therefore regarded as acting on behalf of the contracting carrier (Lufthansa). The Court however emphasises that the operating air carrier (United Airlines) which is obliged to compensate a passenger retains the right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the applicable national law.

Regarding the validity of the Regulation on Air Passenger Rights in the light of the principle of customary international law according to which each State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its airspace, the Court states that a connecting flight falls within the scope of the regulation on the ground that the passengers have started their journey from an airport located in a Member State. It adds that that applicability criterion does not undermine the conditions for the application of the principle of complete and exclusive sovereignty of a State over its airspace.

es de el en fr it pt

It is for the national court to identify the objectives actually pursued by such national legislation

By means of licensing agreements concluded in 2013, following a call for tender in 2011, companies were entrusted with the management of gambling activities using slot machines in Italy. That call for tender fixed the conditions for determining the commission payable to those licence holders.

In 2014, national legislation 1 reduced the State resources paid as commission to those licence holders for the year 2015. That law provides that the licence holders, in exercising the public functions entrusted to them, in addition to what is paid ordinarily to the State, will also pay, annually, the sum of €500 000 000, in proportion to the number of machines registered to each of them as at 31 December 2014. They are to distribute the remaining amounts, available for their fees and commission. In application of that legislation, the amounts due were settled accordingly and the levy was distributed among all operators in the gambling sector and no longer among licence holders alone.

The licence holders brought actions against the levy on the ground that it significantly affected their profit margin and was contrary to EU law.

The Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), court of final instance, referred the questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, seeking to establish, first, whether the national legislation constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment or on the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and, second, whether that legislation is compatible with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

In his Opinion delivered today, Advocate General Rantos considers that the Italian legislation is such as to constitute a restriction on the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, given that the reduction of State resources made available to the licence holders, after the licences were granted, is such as to render the exercise of gambling activities less attractive for those licence holders. Next, the Advocate General proceeds to examine whether those restrictions may be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest.

The Advocate General observes that the legislation on gambling is one of the areas in which there are significant moral, religious and cultural differences between the Member States. For this reason, the Member States enjoy a wide discretion as regards choosing the level of consumer protection and the preservation of order in society. However, the restrictive measures that the Member States impose must be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest and must also comply with the principle of proportionality.