Ms B complained that Trafford Council failed to pay her son’s personal budget for over a year and failed to offer adequate recompense for the delay. Due to the Council’s failings, Ms B suffered distress and frustration in trying to resolve the situation. The LGO found that there was an unacceptable delay of 11 months in paying a personal budget to Ms B to enable her disabled son C to take part in leisure activities. The Council has agreed to pay £2000 to Ms B to make up for C’s lost opportunity and for Ms B’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The Council agreed to continue with its original offer to pay the full amount of £9772 until August 2015; pay a total of £2000 to Ms B to recognise the lost opportunity for C to take part in activities and Ms B ‘s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The LGO emphasised that they money was largely to make for the activities C missed out on.
Ms X complained that Cheshire East Council failed to properly consider and meet the needs of her young disabled son, Y, from 2011 and that the Council failed to deal adequately with her complaint since January 2013. The LGO found that the Council took nine months to complete the core assessment in 2012, which is considerably more than the 35 days in which a core assessment should be completed. There was fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s request to increase direct payment for Y. The LGO recommended that the Council should apologise to Ms X; pay Ms X £2,500 to recognise the injustice caused by the delays in dealing with the matter; pay a further £1,250 to recognise the loss of opportunity to progress the request for further services caused by the long delay in dealing with Ms X’s core assessment; should ensure that it adhered to the statutory deadlines in dealing with complaints about its children’s services; ensure it dealt with complaints under the statutory procedure.
The LGO found that Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council failed to act on concerns about a disabled young person’s isolation from statutory services in April 2014. This led to delay in assessing and meeting his therapy, social, leisure and support needs and a delay in providing a break from caring for his parent carers. The Council agreed the below:
to apologise to Mrs X and Y for its faults
to review Y’s lack of social care provision (and the lack of respite for Mrs X)
to hold an urgent meeting with Mrs X and other appropriate professionals to discuss options for commissioning social care support
to consider with Mrs X whether it would have been helpful for Y to have an independent advocate;
to draw up an action plan with clear timescales and share it with the Ombudsman.
to review why no s.17 child in need assessment was conducted in April 2014;
to make a financial payment to Y in recognition of lost services and distress, calculated as follows:
£100 per month for loss of social care support and loss of opportunity of NHS therapies from August 2014:
£2200 for the 22 months injustice already incurred
a further payment of £100 for each additional month of lost social care support
to make a financial payment to Mrs X, in recognition of lost services and distress, calculated as follows:
£100 per month for loss of respite from August 2014:
£2200 for the 22 months injustice already incurred
a further payment of £100 for each additional month of lost support
£300 for her time and trouble bringing the complaint.
The LGO considered a claim against Salford City Council. Mrs B complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate support to her and her family. Ms B’s son, C had a number of special educational needs, including autism. Mrs B alleged that she was living in fear due to C’s aggression and assault. The LGO found that there was evidence of fault on the part of the Council which caused injustice to Mrs B, who was significantly affected by the behaviour of C. The Council agreed to make a total payment of £1,600, to apologise and to consider amending its procedures
The LGO considered a complaint against Kent County Council brought by Mrs J. Mrs J complained about the way the Council dealt with the care of her autistic son, B. The LGO found the following faults:
the Council delayed in sending Mrs J the completed assessment.
The Council also failed to respond effectively to the agency’s request for 2:1 support for B, and then it failed to deal with the ceasing of the agency’s service.
The Council failed to provide the short breaks for 24 nights a year agreed in September 2014.
The Council agreed to apologise for its part in the shortfall in B’s car and pay her £1,300.
Malcolm Johnson E: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.