The Commission for Local Administration in England
Findings of maladministration and injustice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield City Council (02/C/8690)
Services for adults
‘Mr W Hill’ had a brother, ‘Mr K Hill’ (not their real names), with learning difficulties and an autistic spectrum disorder. Mr W Hill complained that the Council failed to assess his brother’s needs properly in 2000 and then failed to reassess his needs as recommended by a social services complaints review panel. He also complained that the Council failed to assess his own needs as his brother’s carer, failed to provide his brother with an adequate service, and failed to deal properly with complaints about these matters.
The Ombudsman found that the complaints were justified. Her investigation revealed that the Council had undertaken no proper assessment when it first received a referral in 1999, kept no proper records and failed to undertake any effective service planning. No practical help was provided to the brothers at this time despite the existence of a new source of grant aid from central Government (Promoting Independence: Partnership, Prevention and Carers Grant) between 1999 and 2002 designed to provide, for example, respite care in this kind of situation. A care plan was drawn up after an assessment completed in June 2000 but the Council’s attempts to help the brothers were not successful, primarily because social services staff did not take the time to build up a relationship with Mr K Hill and he kept refusing services offered because he finds new people and social situations frightening. Mr W Hill requested a carer’s assessment in August 2000 but the Ombudsman found no evidence that this was undertaken until November 2002.
The Ombudsman upheld the complaints about the way the complaints from Mr W Hill had been handled.
The Council stated that it was not culpable because Mr K Hill rejected services when offered them. The Ombudsman accepted that services could not be forced on an unwilling person but criticised the Council for taking these rejections at face value rather than considering whether, given his degree of learning difficulty and autistic spectrum disorder, Mr K Hill’s decisions to reject services were informed decisions.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
pay Mr K Hill £4,500 compensation for loss of service over a period of four-and-a-half years;
pay Mr W Hill £1,500 for loss of support as a carer and for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint;
make direct payments to Mr W Hill to provide services for Mr K Hill in accordance with any current assessment and future reassessments of Mr K Hill;
make direct payments to Mr W Hill for the purchase of respite care for Mr K Hill in accordance with any current carer’s assessment and future reassessments;
ensure that its staff received specific training in relation to the needs of service users with autism;
ensure that its staff completed file notes for each visit and contact made on behalf of clients;
comply with the requirements of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 guidance in relation to assessments and care plans and to the principles laid down in the White Paper Valuing People; and
comply with statutory timescales for determination of complaints under the social services statutory complaints procedure.
9 August 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note by Stella Maru:
People who hope for quick results should look at the time intervals in this case, which began in 2000, was not concluded until August 2004, and not publicly reported until very recently.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (02/C/17068)
Services for adults
‘Mrs Jefferson’s son ‘Andrew Taylor’ (not their real names) had epilepsy and Fragile X Syndrome and required ongoing support from the Council. Mrs Jefferson complained that: following a finding of the Mental Health Tribunal in February 2002 that Mr Taylor (then aged 18) should be transferred out of a secure adult psychiatric ward to an appropriate placement as soon as possible, the Council failed for more than a year to provide a suitable placement; and the Council did not deal with her formal complaint made on 19 November 2002 in accordance with the time limits set out in the social services statutory complaints procedure.
She claimed that there were no facilities in the hospital for patients with a learning disability, staff were not familiar with the needs of people with an autistic spectrum disorder, her son was constantly heavily sedated and his right to liberty was violated.
The investigation uncovered a catalogue of errors. The Council had failed to assess Mr Taylor’s needs properly in accordance with the requirements of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 and had failed to prepare him for return to the community from residential school. The Council had set up a special project to house Mr Taylor and three other young people but had allowed insufficient lead time for its establishment so it was not ready when the school asked the Council to place Mr Taylor elsewhere. Within days of leaving school Mr Taylor was sectioned because of his behaviour and, because of the Council’s refusal to fund a placement that would have met his needs, he remained for 18 months in a locked adult psychiatric ward whose provision was totally unsuitable. Because it prioritised budgetary considerations over the legal requirement to meet Mr Taylor’s assessed needs, the Council wanted to place him in an establishment to which it knew his family were opposed, prolonging his detention in hospital. Only when another manager became involved did the Council begin to work in partnership with Mr Taylor and his family, and the fact that Mr Taylor was then successfully placed in the community was due to her intervention and to the skill of the establishment to which he was then introduced.
The Council acknowledged that it and other agencies made mistakes in dealing with Mr Taylor and it assured the Ombudsman that it has made many changes in the way services are provided to people like Mr Taylor who had complex needs.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and the Council agreed to:
pay Mrs Jefferson the sum of £10,000;
pay Mrs Jefferson £20,000 to be administered by her for her son’s benefit; and
review its procedures for considering placements in the independent sector to ensure that a determination to keep costs to a minimum does not lead it to make unlawful decisions by failing to meet assessed need.
30 November 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I wonder how many similar cases there have been in the UK and other countries? The problem with adults with autism particularly if they aren't verbal lies in making themselves understood and in understanding the health professionals they deal with. All too often the authorities have preconceived notions and don't even want to meet us halfway.
Another important issue is where a person has suffered much bullying and mistreatment; they will often be extremely suspicious even of well-intentioned and genuine efforts to assist them, resulting in behaviour that is perceived as rude and hurtful.
As even a person with relatively "mild" autism, I still have a notation in my diagnostic sheets that I have "complex" social needs. How much more difficult it would be for people even lower on the spectrum.
Hmm, I wonder how many similar cases there have been in the UK and other countries? The problem with adults with autism particularly if they aren't verbal lies in making themselves understood and in understanding the health professionals they deal with. All too often the authorities have preconceived notions and don't even want to meet us halfway.
Another important issue is where a person has suffered much bullying and mistreatment; they will often be extremely suspicious even of well-intentioned and genuine efforts to assist them, resulting in behaviour that is perceived as rude and hurtful.
As even a person with relatively "mild" autism, I still have a notation in my diagnostic sheets that I have "complex" social needs. How much more difficult it would be for people even lower on the spectrum.
How many 3 year old threads have you necrobumped, in recent times? I've lost count...
Hmm, I wonder how many similar cases there have been in the UK and other countries? The problem with adults with autism particularly if they aren't verbal lies in making themselves understood and in understanding the health professionals they deal with. All too often the authorities have preconceived notions and don't even want to meet us halfway.
Another important issue is where a person has suffered much bullying and mistreatment; they will often be extremely suspicious even of well-intentioned and genuine efforts to assist them, resulting in behaviour that is perceived as rude and hurtful.
As even a person with relatively "mild" autism, I still have a notation in my diagnostic sheets that I have "complex" social needs. How much more difficult it would be for people even lower on the spectrum.
How many 3 year old threads have you necrobumped, in recent times? I've lost count...
Batman55, I think your comment is mean and uncalled for and just another "dig" you seem to have had at me lately.
's nothing wrong with necrobumping,i do it all the time.