[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
Protecting Vulnerable Adults from Abuse (Safeguarding) - Page 4 - Carers UK Forum

Protecting Vulnerable Adults from Abuse (Safeguarding)

Share your ideas about the practical side of caring.
79 posts
This is exactly why the Ombudsman is now investigating my local authority. One aspect of my allegation of abuse involves the determined way in which the social workers chose to ignore the concrete evidence I gave them. I simply believe that they did not read it because

a) It would involve too much work - if my allegation was true then others were very likely to be abused too
b) The Local Authority wanted, in their own words to "maintain a good working relationship with the care provider".
c) The care provider was overcharging my son, which meant they were undercharging the LA. If I was right, it would affect their budget.
Even on this forum I have been criticised for mentioning my situation more than once. It may be an old fashioned view, but I believe we all have a moral duty to protect the most vulnerable in society.

I'm not having anything to do with the Queen's Jubilee this weekend. She had two mentally handicapped cousins, put away in the 1940's, and then ignored (Google Bowes Lyon mentally handicapped if you don't believe me). So much for our caring monarch!
Mentally handicapped? If you want to find out more about the Queen's cousins, that's the term to use on Google.
Bowlingbun - sounds like you've been through a nightmare. Seems to me like it was the classic case of people "closing ranks" to protect each other, rather than investigating the problems properly to begin with. Hope things have improved for you now.

Not sure I can agree with you about the Queen though. I don't believe it was solely her decision to shut away her cousins in an institution - she was probably influenced by all sorts of advisers and older relatives, plus the general attitudes prevalent at the time. Plus she had her work cut out being our monarch - I don't think it's been a bed of roses for her, despite the financial perks.

Hillside - your story is both disturbing and shocking. It must be hard enough having a son with all those health issues, without having to worry about him suffering abuse at the hands of the very people who are meant to be helping him. Appalling!
My saga continues, I have a really important meeting at County HQ on Wednesday,. I have now discovered that none of the staff who were responsible for the almighty mess remain in post. After yet another reorganisation, the key people have all moved on or retired. Did they jump or were they pushed?! I'll never know.

As for the Queen, I know she wasn't involved in what initially happened to her cousins, but surely she could ask a member of staff to arrange annual birthday or Christmas cards, presents and special treats for them?
Good luck, Bowlingburn, on Wednesday. I know exactly how you must be feeling - the words 'almigghty mess' have a great deal of resonnance with us.

In 2007 our son's case transferred from one local authority to another. During that process the incoming authority was undergoing a change from being a city authority to a unitary one; when - inevitably! - there was a great change in the structure of the social services department. As a result our son's case fell through the net.

From which we could never get any sense out of them; and to cut a long story short, are now faced with a financial bill of some 'thousands' of pounds from a separate government department. This was all because the social worker failed to do any paperwork in relation to our son's package; and senior management - most of whom have now 'disappeared' - simply didn't have the moral fibre to acknowledge that they got it wrong.

They failed to submit us any bills to pay for his care - and now we are faced with a big argument as to what constitutes 'care' - is it really just about 'providing staff whose job is only to feed, weed, and use the hoover', or does 'care' amount to a wholely different concept?

So not only have we had to cope with many different sets of abuse, we are now being penalised for the incompetence of a department committed to trying to absolve itself from its responsinilities through the label of 'Safeguarding'.

Who is guarding who, and when does it become safe?

So good luck Bowlingburn.
Good luck with the meeting tomorrow Bowlingbun - I hope you get some issues resolved.

Hillside - what a nightmare you've been through! "Safeguarding who?" indeed! Trouble is that some of the people higher up the food chain in the NHS and social services earn quite large salaries, so I guess they have a very strong interest in protecting their backs. (I've seen senior NHS management posts advertised where the salaries are £50,000 - £70,000 - they're not exactly in the lower income bracket.)
Thanks for your good wishes for tomorrow. I've had an email about the problems the staff are having accounting for my son's money because, according to them, the mini statement doesn't show all transactions. How can they not know that it might take a couple of days for a payment to be processed? Little wonder that they're having problems. The Chief Executive should ensure that her staff are capable of supporting my son properly to spend his money wisely. Am I being too demanding to expect them all the be able to interpret a mini statement correctly?!?!
I had a good meeting today, attended by the head social worker for LD in the County, the County Auditor, and her assistant.

1) Within seconds it was agreed that the care agency were not completing the weekly money record sheets ;roperly (as I'd maintained for years, but no one listened). A thorough audit of the last few months will be undertaken, then the auditor and SW will tell the care agency what MUST be done in future.
2) It was also accepted that some on the invoicing problems I had been blamed for was not my responsibility (again, as I'd maintained all along) and that too will be sorted out by the head SW.
3) It was agreed that as soon as reasonably practical, the LA would assume responsibility for the entire care package, rather than the ILF, which should drastically reduce my workload (much to my relief).
4) No explanation could be given as to why the LA refused to pay for the care package in 2006 when my son moved into a Supported Living place when I was recovering from life saving surgery and was desperately trying to reduce my work, not increase it.

I hope this gives others, who feel their fight is helpless, the courage to keep plodding on through the maze of bureaucratic red tape which exists. I first started complaining about my son's record keeping at least eight years ago, but no proper action was taken simply because the social workers involved didn't understand simple record keeping!

I will keep you all informed about progress from here on.
Ah, so FINALLY you're getting somewhere?!? Image Well done Bowlingbun, just shows that perseverance is sometimes the key to getting things done. It's great that you've had some acknowledgement that records had not been kept properly - sounds like you have made a real breakthrough.
Hi Bowlingbun

I am so glad that your meeting went well today. I am thinking about starting a complaint but as we carers all know Social Workers will twist everything and even lie outright to avoid admitting they got anything wrong. Your case gives me hope that maybe just maybe there is hope that justice will be done.

Little Lamb
79 posts