A Salford man who was “socially isolated” has been paid £400 after Salford City Council failed to provide sufficient care and support he was entitled to following his move to the city two years ago.
The ambulance and police service were called to his address after he suffered falls and said he was suicidal, as a result of a lack of care and support for his physical and mental conditions.
In a report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), Salford City Council was found to be at fault, and they have agreed to apologise in writing to the complainant.
The man, who is referred to as Mr B in the report, moved to Salford on 30 May 2023.
He had been referred to Salford City Council by his previous council, named Council K in the report, on 19 May, and they had informed Salford City Council of his needs, which entitled him to 15 hours of support a week and a daily 20-minute visit from a care agency.
While Salford City Council did acknowledge this, support was not put in place in time for his move, and Mr B contacted the council saying he needed “urgent support” to pick up his medication and visit his GP on 30 May.
Mr B, who suffers from fatigue, tremors and spasm, as well as agoraphobia and PTSD, also said he suffered falls because of the lack of care.
A meeting was held on 13 June between the councils, but no support was given to Mr B between his move and the meeting.
Council K informed Salford City Council that Mr B’s care plan had not been put in place at his previous address, as Mr B did not agree to contribute to the care package, due to a dispute over disability related expenditure.
While Council K never provided commissioned support as a result, he was still supported through their reablement service, as well as goodwill gestures such as a weekly shop to help him increase his independence.
Following the meeting, Mr B’s needs for care and support were assessed by a Salford City Council social worker on 16 June, where they found he only had one eligible need under the Care Act, and was not entitled to support from the Council.
When told this, Mr B disagreed and began filing formal complaints about the decision assessment on 26 June.
He alleged that the assessment was factually incorrect in a meeting with Salford City Council on 14 July, which aimed to let Mr B “share his feelings regarding the assessment” and discuss his complaints.
He said he was unable to leave the house, go to the shops, take a taxi or use public transport without support, and said he had not left his home unaccompanied for 15 years.
Contrary to what had been noted in the assessment, he said he was unable to wash himself, attend meetings or appointments, make meals or maintain relationships without support.
In response, the Council said the factually incorrect statements could be amended, but the support Mr B wanted was not something it could provide, as they promoted “strength-based working.”
When Mr B complained and continued to ask for a reassessment in the following weeks, the Council denied the reassessment.
The manager said that the assessment “stands,” but if Mr B disagreed, he could appeal and this would then be considered by senior management.
However, the Ombudsman report said that there was “no evidence that senior management considered the appeal/complaint,” and that “Mr B made a lot of valid points” in the meeting.
From June to September 2023, Mr B continued to make complaints, alleging that Salford City Council refused to look at the evidence of the support he received from Council K, and that the transition of his care package from Council K was not in line with the Care Act.
He complained that the social worker’s assessment of his needs was unsatisfactory, and only consisted of 5 or 6 questions and said the report of the findings
then being full of “untruths and was fabricated.”
During this time, he said he was alone in his flat, unable to go out, unable to go to his doctor, was not eating and needed support urgently.
When Mr B became suicidal and suffered several falls, the police and the ambulance service became involved, and when they saw his “cluttered” home, they said it was a health and fire risk.
In a reply to Mr B’s complaints on 28 July, the council said that they had “carried out a comprehensive assessment of Mr B’s needs” along with offering community-based services to help.
The Council continued to hold the position that Mr B was not entitled to a reassessment throughout most of August, but suddenly changed its position on 4 September.
The report states that: “There was no explanation for this change in decision or why this decision was not made earlier, ” and the Ombudsman found further faults with the council in their delay of two months in offering the reassessment.
Mr B was found to be eligible for the provision of support in nutrition, personal hygiene, maintaining a habitable home, maintaining relationships and making use of services in the local community – each of these factors was addressed in the original assessment by council K.
The Ombudsman said that Mr B was socially isolated as he had moved to a new area, and he was unable to make new social connections in the community as he could not go out without a person with him.
A deep clean of Mr B’s property was arranged as part of the support, but further commissioned support “would not be considered.”
When this was explained to Mr B, he disagreed and raised further complaints, and on 6 November, it was decided Mr B may be at risk of self-neglect following multiple safeguarding referrals.
On 18 December, due to his personal hygiene, nutritional needs and environmental surroundings, it was decided that a care plan would be put in place for Mr B, which entitled him to 10 hours per week support, as well as a care agency supporting the decluttering, organising and cleaning of the property.
However, the Ombudsman’s noted that “the Council only put in place the care package after Mr B made further complaints and there was a safeguarding enquiry which said he was at risk of neglect.”
The report’s overall findings showed that Mr B missed out on care and support, causing great distress from 14 September onwards, and found fault with Salford City Council as a result.
Alongside making a “symbolic” payment for the injustice and issuing a written apology, the council will also remind relevant officers of the duties to carry out a review as set out in the CASS Guidance, which set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support.
Recent Comments