This was a claim brought against Birmingham City Council who delayed for over two years in providing for Mr N’ needs. Mr N had a severe learning disability, epilepsy and atypical autism. Mr N’s epilepsy meant that he had seizures of varying severity and needed help with daily living. The LGO found maladministration causing injustice and therefore the Council agreed to pay Mr N £52,513 for lost payments and services (of which £15,608 related to lost IFL payments) and to further pay £500 to Mr N’s mother and sister in recognition of the time and inconvenience they had in trying to get adequate services for Mr N.
The Council excessively delayed (6 months) in assessing Ms C’s need and failed to provide any services to meet those needs on time. As a result this delay and lack of urgency from the Council caused Ms C significant injustice as she has been without essential services to improve her quality of life for 21 months, this had inevitably affected Ms C adversely. After the Council’s fault she felt isolated and unhappy. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms C by the Council’s delay, the LGO asked the Council to confirm that the personal budget of £17,739 was available to Ms C to enable her to access support services as a matter of urgency and to pay her £5,000 to make up for the very long period of time she has been left without any services.
The LGO found faults in the way Worcestershire County Council handled the care needs of a young man with cerebral palsy over several years. The Council agreed to pay £9.000 compensation to the mother and £4,000 to the son to reflect his suffering and inconvenience.
The Council delayed for 14 months in progressing Mrs C’s assessments and making direct payments to Mrs C. As a result Mrs C’s family had to provide more care for her than could reasonably be expected. This had caused distress to the family. The LGO recommended that the Council paid £13,716 settlement to Mrs C’s estate and make an additional payment of £100 to Mrs X to acknowledge her time and trouble is a fair and proportionate way to settle the complaint.
The LGO considered a claim against North Somerset Council and the Trust. Mr and Mrs L complained about a desktop assessment that was carried out by two social workers. In the assessment Mr and Mrs L were accused of physical, emotional and financial abuse of their daughter Miss L. Due to this defamatory assessment, the complainants alleged that the mental health services were withdrawn from Miss L, and as a result Miss L ’s care was adversely affected as she had been left without the required mental health support. Overall the desktop assessment had caused considerable distress to the whole family. The LGO found that the assessment was flawed. The information contained in it was so inaccurate that it would not be relied upon, and this was fault. Further the inaccurate information led to staff wrongly diagnosing that Miss L did not have a mental health need. Mr and Mrs L have offered Miss L a significant amount of emotional and financial support. Due to the flawed assessment, Miss L was exposed to a great risk, and Mr and Mrs L suffered significant distress. The LGO recommended the below:
The Trust to remove the assessment from all its records and that within a month, the Council would ensure it does the same.
Within a month, the Trust and Council would apologise unreservedly to Miss L and Mr and Mrs L for the lasting impact the flawed assessment had had.
Within the next three months, the Trust and the Council should produce an action plan to address the faults identified in the report. Copies of this action plan should be sent to Mr and Mrs L, the Health Service Ombudsman, the Care Quality Commission (the CQC) and NHS Trust Development Authority.
Within the next three months, the Trust and the Council should jointly make payments of £10,000 to Mr and Mrs L in recognition of the injustices they have suffered. This amount should be split evenly with £5,000 being provided by the Trust and £5,000 being provided by the Council.
Malcolm Johnson E: email@example.com
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. This website is produced for the assistance of advocates submitting complaints to local authorities and other organisations. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.