Shropshire Council criticised for social care complaint

[rosemary]

Shropshire Council failed to offer effective support for a man who was providing 24 hour care for his wife.

The Local Government Ombudsman, in a report issued today, has recommended that the council apologise to the couple for not properly considering their needs, and make a payment of over £60,000.

The Ombudsman’s investigation throws into the spotlight the issue of blurred boundaries between formal and informal care – often provided by a family member – and how the needs of the carer can be overlooked.

The case against Shropshire Council found that there was strong evidence that the complainant’s wife required 24 hour attention for her complex mental health problems, which her husband was mostly providing. In fact between March 2008 and April 2010 the council only provided direct payments to employ a carer for 50 hours per week.

The Ombudsman found that the council did not carry out a formal assessment of the needs of the complainant’s wife, resulting in an ad-hoc programme of care based around how it could support the husband to work full-time and care for his wife. In the interim, the husband lost his job, pension contributions and career prospects, as a result of the inaction of the council.

read in full here
http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2013/may/shr ... complaint/

[charles47]

B***dy good show!

Nice to see a good result - even if it should have been done right from the start.

[rosemary]

Look how long its gone on Charles. From 2008. I wonder how much council wasted in legal fees too.

[bowlingbun]

Well done, this must give hope to a lot of people dealing with complex mental health issues.

[charles47]

Look how long its gone on Charles. From 2008. I wonder how much council wasted in legal fees too.

I agree it should never have taken so long. Have had a few cases like this over the years where it's taken some fairly heavy research to hit the legal buttons. One case a couple of years ago had me facing off against a council solicitor. Fortunately I'd done enough research and was able to provide hard copy of statutory guidance that proved why they were wrong.

[NanaNana]

Oh yeah, that's some of mine and a certain other person on here's money for a start. I used to find them pretty good to be honest, but these things can happen if not explained properly or mis-interpreted when doing assessments, or not, in this case. When we had assessments, we were always sent a copy of it, to check over and sign/return/amend if we needed to. How the 'assessor' interprets interviews and visits and needs, isn't always what appears on the official assessment report.
In fact, some of the things originally noted down on ours, were downright lies, until we corrected them, which could have lead to dangerous situations with PA's in our house, believing that hubby's condition wasn't as serious as it was.

[pamr1]

thank you rosemary. a useful piece, might well come in useful when ILF payments are handed over to councils. i have printed it off and will file it - just in case. pam x