SAR and delaying reviews?

[AJ_1907]

Hello again all,

Just wondering if anyone can tell me - would someone have a leg to stand on if they requested a delay in a review/assessment from social services, until they had received all the data they'd requested under a subject access request?

I feel like it's kind of important for everyone to be on the same page during these things, especially when care cuts are on the table, but would it be frowned upon to say "I'm not prepared to engage with the review process, until I've seen all the information you hold on me for myself?"

If anyone has any knowledge or experience in this area, your advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks everyone.

[Chris From The Gulag]

Hi AJ.

Nothing revealed in an Internet search , nor have I seen a similar request in 15 years on the forums.

Best guess would be to either contact the LA and request a delay or , first , bouncing that off the CAB to see if they foresee any
problems ... such as rescheduling several weeks / months down the line.

Can you spell out what's behind the SAR in case we can provide better advice ?

[AJ_1907]

Thanks Chris, it's an odd one, isn't it.

Well, basically a social worker has decided to try and impose care cuts on my sister in law, despite there being no change in her level of need.

They are chomping at the bit to force her into a care home, and claiming that what they pay for her care at home is more expensive than the cost her being in a care home (from the prices I've found online, she's nowhere close!) the social worker in question has also made many erroneous claims regarding funding and assessed needs etc. From what little paperwork we've received from the council regarding her care, it seems they have never provided a comprehensive report on her needs.

After literally months of back and forth with the council over this, they have repeatedly dodged any attempts I've made to obtain costing for care homes from them, and haven't given an updated breakdown of my SIL's care funding since 2017, despite it being changed in 2018 when minimum wage went up!

She's asked them to tell us what they pay out for her and what they would pay in a care home for someone with her level of need, however they are not forthcoming with any info. She made an FoI request for details of care costs in the area, and a SAR to try to see what it is social services are working with to have concluded her care needs to be cut, and to find out what figures they are working with that allow them to make claims like "she's more expensive at home than in care".

It's all information we feel would be beneficial to be aware of before the review process continues. Especially when dealing with a social worker who had previously made a lot of false claims during a review and was hellbent on cutting funding with no regard to my SIL's actual needs, and came out with a preconceived decision to cut her care.

[Chris From The Gulag]

A common theme running through a few threads and , more importantly , what low millions are actually experiencing nationwide.

( NO LA can " Force " a client into a care home. It is US who are picking up the slack , many giving up paid employment as the care support is simply not there ... or unaffordable. ))

Short of the usual ( 1 ) complaint to the LA ... followed by ( 2 ) escalate through the LA and Social Care Ombudsman , I have little
else to suggest ... bearing in mind the sheer time involved between the actual cutback and possible restitution.

[leah_1902]

Thanks Chris, it's an odd one, isn't it.

Well, basically a social worker has decided to try and impose care cuts on my sister in law, despite there being no change in her level of need.

They are chomping at the bit to force her into a care home, and claiming that what they pay for her care at home is more expensive than the cost her being in a care home (from the prices I've found online, she's nowhere close!) the social worker in question has also made many erroneous claims regarding funding and assessed needs etc. From what little paperwork we've received from the council regarding her care, it seems they have never provided a comprehensive report on her needs.

After literally months of back and forth with the council over this, they have repeatedly dodged any attempts I've made to obtain costing for care homes from them, and haven't given an updated breakdown of my SIL's care funding since 2017, despite it being changed in 2018 when minimum wage went up!

She's asked them to tell us what they pay out for her and what they would pay in a care home for someone with her level of need, however they are not forthcoming with any info. She made an FoI request for details of care costs in the area, and a SAR to try to see what it is social services are working with to have concluded her care needs to be cut, and to find out what figures they are working with that allow them to make claims like "she's more expensive at home than in care".

It's all information we feel would be beneficial to be aware of before the review process continues. Especially when dealing with a social worker who had previously made a lot of false claims during a review and was hellbent on cutting funding with no regard to my SIL's actual needs, and came out with a preconceived decision to cut her care.

I dread to take a guess at what numbers they are working with.. Definitely complain to higher up people about the lack of paperwork and failure to provide too. Can you change social workers or not? The social worker is very bad and needs to learn her lesson. Why did the council fail to give you a report on her needs? Make a complaint about the social worker. Your sister deserves better than this. Care homes are very expensive and not always good either. Try complaining to the care quality commission as well.. they might be interested to hear your complaint. Good luck!

[bowlingbun]

When did you apply for the SAR? I think the time limit is now 30 days. Look at the Information Commissioner's office website for more info. If it's late, let the INCO sort it out for you!

[Londonbound]

The council are having to cut social care costs, I think I read one council 43 per cent of the budget is going towards social care.

Cutting just a few hours on someones care can save thousands on the social care bill, that's what all my carees had.
Social workers were visting not to see if their clients were alright, but to try and cut the care packages.
My carees barely got any help, rushed visits, carers having to run off to the next clients.

Does your sister in law not get a bill for her care, every month a statement came through for my caree, it was £1238 and pence, so that's about 300 pound a week, My caree on benefits had to pay a proportion of this.
The council can get discounts on care homes, it was in the papers that essentially private patients of care homes were having to pay more, effectively subsidising the council residents.

From the council blurb we have it is always cheaper to have home services, care is expensive and they don't want clients to end up in hospital or care as it costs too much.

The council are just trying to save money and its the carees and carers that are suffering as a result.

[leah_1902]

The council are having to cut social care costs, I think I read one council 43 per cent of the budget is going towards social care.

Cutting just a few hours on someones care can save thousands on the social care bill, that's what all my carees had.
Social workers were visting not to see if their clients were alright, but to try and cut the care packages.
My carees barely got any help, rushed visits, carers having to run off to the next clients.

Does your sister in law not get a bill for her care, every month a statement came through for my caree, it was £1238 and pence, so that's about 300 pound a week, My caree on benefits had to pay a proportion of this.
The council can get discounts on care homes, it was in the papers that essentially private patients of care homes were having to pay more, effectively subsidising the council residents.

From the council blurb we have it is always cheaper to have home services, care is expensive and they don't want clients to end up in hospital or care as it costs too much.

The council are just trying to save money and its the carees and carers that are suffering as a result.

That's rubbish. It is not cheaper. What about the principles? Money should never dictate your life. It shouldn't be about money at all but about the most kindest option and the principles of caring too.

[Chris From The Gulag]

It is not cheaper. What about the principles? Money should never dictate your life. It shouldn't be about money at all but about the most kindest option and the principles of caring too.

It IS all about money ... the continuing battle between the LAs and Central government ... as detailed in the main GREEN PAPER
SOCIAL CARE thread ... and the ongoing madness contained therein :

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/support- ... ial%20care

( Principles are fine ... if you can afford them ? )

[Londonbound]

Thing is it is all about money, NYCC and all the councils are trying to cut costs only today on the news 95 council staff are losing their jobs as the council are making cuts.

Our council have contracted out the care to private care companys, all the social services carers who were on a wacking good wage, good pension etc were got rid of.

TO SAVE MONEY.

The private carers are on minimum wage and you don't get good quality with minimum wages, you just don't.

Same with the NHS wheelchair service, they just can't afford to give you an all singing or dancing wheelchair and sometimes they refuse to give you a wheelchair at all.

There used to be so much support for my carees, it's all gone now due to council cuts.

Copied straight from the council website:-

"The longer term position therefore remains largely unchanged with the county council having to save a further £43m from its revenue budget by 2019/20.
The council has plans for £33m and a savings gap of £10m remains before news of the next funding settlement is made.
This gives a total of £169.4m saved over the decade – which represents a reduction of 34 per cent in the council’s spending power.