A non-NHS consultant mental health specialist may well do a report about the person with the difficulties, but all that really does is flag up a line of thinking to be addressed by the actual decision-maker – ie the team responsible for s117 aftercare planning. A review should be able to be forced on the basis of evidence of a change of circumstances, or the kind of recommendation you mention. If a review is refused, that amounts to the team refusing to engage with the individual or their family, and for that, even, there’d need to be a good reason. This is the theory, at least, not the actual reality of how the system works. Since s117 is a joint duty of the council and the NHS, and all councils have a principal social worker, a head of mental health and a monitoring officer who is the lead governance officer, it OUGHT to be possible to point out that a review of a s117 care plan is the only way that the statutory purpose ever gets fulfilled – which is keeping someone from being compulsorily resectioned again. It is not only annual, or even annual; it is whenever a reasonable professional, properly informed of the facts, would think that one is needed.
The position that the person would need to self fund is a very clear wrongful stance, in terms of public law. It indicates a fetter of discretion as to how to meet need, or an irrational stance with regard to identifying need, on the basis that nobody needs more than one PA.