[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Ombudsmen and Isle of Wight Downs syndrome case - Carers UK Forum

Ombudsmen and Isle of Wight Downs syndrome case

For issues specific to caring for someone with learning disabilities
https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/adult- ... 17-012-287
This is story I find shocking from the Ombudsman list this week.
A 26 years old Downs sufferer was removed permanently from foster parents, and temporarily from biological parent, after 15 years, because the SS were heavy handed and at fault following a safeguarding enquiry.
The foster parents lost their 'son' forever and got awarded about £2000. He is now in residential care and not doing well.

Makes my blood boil.

The Ombudsman seems limited in what he can do? Is there no other recourse for either carers or caree?
After over a year, the Ombudsman decided that the LA should redo M's Needs Assessment and Carers Assessment within 8 weeks. That was in June.
The SW did M's Assessment without involving him at all, supposedly now finished, but without any risk assessments.
I've written to complain, but at the moment am being fobbed off.

If I can't get the system to work properly, what hope is there for anyone???
Yes ... I share Mrs. A. view.

Foster carers ... different from us ... as in law ... but ...for many , their EMOTIONAL attachment to their " Caree " is no different to ours as family / kinship carers.

That attachment is ignored by all and sundry when matters are settled by a textbook solution ... devoid of emotion.

Section 42 of the Care Act , 2014 , cited ... worth posting so readers can see some of the background for those to be to consider :
Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 (the Act) defines an adult at risk as an adult who:

has needs for care and support (whether or not the local authority is meeting any of those needs) and;

is experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect; and

as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect;

the local authority retains the responsibility for overseeing a safeguarding enquiry and ensuring that any investigation satisfies its duty under section 42 to decide what action (if any) is necessary to help and protect the adult, and to ensure that such action is taken when necessary.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

The Act sets out a clear legal framework for how local authorities and other parts of the system should protect adults at risk of abuse or neglect. It must:

lead a multi-agency local adult safeguarding system that seeks to prevent abuse and neglect and stop it quickly when it happens;

make enquiries, or request others to make them, when it thinks an adult with care and support needs may be at risk of abuse or neglect and determine what action may be needed.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Care Act work together to promote the empowerment, safety and wellbeing of adults with care and support needs. Section 44 of the MCA prioritises people’s safety by making willful neglect or mistreatment of an adult who lacks capacity to make decisions a criminal offence.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

There is nothing in the Care Act that replaces or undermines the MCA when it comes to making decisions with or on behalf of adults who lack capacity. There are five principles of the Act that need consideration:

Assume that a person has capacity to make decisions, unless there is evidence otherwise.

Do all you can to maximise a person’s capacity.

Unwise or eccentric decisions do not in themselves prove lack of capacity.

If you are making a decision for or about a person who lacks capacity, act in their best interests.

Look for the least restrictive option that will meet the need.


I read that as guidance ... parts open to more than one interpretation ... not a blueprint ?

As a side issue ... Direct Payments ... allegations of misuse ... always liable to rear it's ugly head when disputes arise.
I have made a series of complaints about Financial Abuse, with cler factual evidence.
NONE were properly investigated, all "passed to the Area Team" who did absolutely nothing.
bowlingbun wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:29 pm
I have made a series of complaints about Financial Abuse, with cler factual evidence.
NONE were properly investigated, all "passed to the Area Team" who did absolutely nothing.
If you raise them as Formal complaints 're safeguarding and if that doesn't bring resolution, you can go the Ombusdman... but I am conscious you have to pick which battles to fight. :roll: