By James Simons-
Richmond Council has been forced to reimburse a service user for two months of domiciliary care after it “failed to do enough” to inform her she would have to pay a contribution towards her care.
Richmond Council was heavily criticized by The Ombudsman, after its investigation found “no evidence” Richmond council informed the complaining service user, about its charging policy when a social worker first assessed her needs. The identity of the service user has been withheld.
The Ombudsman also concluded that Richmond council took “too long” to inform the complainant of an imposed obligation for her to pay a contribution to the care she received, leaving her no time to find alternative care. The female complainant insisted Richmond Council did not inform her of any expectations for her to pay any contributions towards the scheme.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Richmond council has conceded errors after the embarrassing findings, and agreed to learn lessons from the complaint submitted by the complainant and her son. They agreed that within three months it would complete a review of its practice of undertaking financial assessments.The local authority also agreed to make sure services uses know their assessed contribution before care begins by ensuring financial assessments happen around the same time as assessments of need and making sure financial assessments are completed in good time.
The severe error or inadequate delivery of service began after a care agency had been commissioned in a care and support plan to arrange for carers to visit the complaining service user at home five times a week for two hours a day. The care and support plan and the needs assessment was set up a month after the council social worker visited the service user who lodged the complaint.
The woman’s contribution to a needs assessment referring to an indicative budget for the cost of care of £174 a week was also stated by the care and support plan to be the same amount as the personal budget. The service user’s contribution was recorded as zero, highlighting a strange and reckless inconsistency in the operations of that department in Richmond Council. A natural expectation would be for the boss or manager of the social worker to routinely supervise the professional activities of staff under their authority.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
A set of conflicting information discovered by the Ombudsman investigation exposed staff at Richmond Council for being unprofessional and incompetent. An exchange of emails between the social worker and an officer in the financial assessment team revealed the social worker had claimed the service user knew about the charging policy. She was also said to have been in receipt of benefits.
An officer from the financial assessment team had spoken to the woman on 6 February 2017, and recorded documents revealed that the woman was unaware of any charging policy and had not received any form for a financial assessment. A form was sent to the woman to assess her contribution to care costs , leading to her being sent invoices for two months’ worth of care charges, taking her by huge surprise.The ombudsman’s report conclusively found no comments in the council’s assessment paperwork or case notes that said if it provided the service user any information about its charging policy or the need for a financial assessment.
RECORDS
The council document also found no record of the social worker writing to the complainant, or any signs she was sent a copy of the documents after they visited her.
An officer from the financial assessment team spoke to the woman in February in recorded documents that showed she had no expectations of being responsible for any contributory fees for her care. An irregular observation was that home care service had already come into effect at the beginning of the month that required her to pay charges, but she was later given a form to assess her means and whether she was eligible for payment exemptions.
Recorded documents on the 20th of February revealed that the woman spoke to a duty social worker, who reported Mrs K was “unaware” no financial assessment had been completed, and was “very concerned” at the prospect of paying backdated charges for care.
Richmond Council then eventually wrote to the woman demanding a payment of around £110 a week towards her care. The Council sent a first invoice to her 15 days later, requesting a payment of around £440 .On 9 March, the woman asked to reduce her package of care as she said she could not afford the contribution, requesting two days of care a week. The council agreed and re-calculated her contribution at £69 a week. The woman received a second invoice, requesting a payment of around £360.
Richmond Council then contradicted itself, when during a visit to the woman that month to discuss the care charging policy with her, one of its social workers said there were no grounds for it to change its assessment which called for more financial contributions from the woman. However, a different social worker met with the same woman in June and decided there was no further assessment of need since she did not want the council to arrange a care package for her..
The ombudsman blasted Richmond Council’s for falling “well short” of the expectation set out in government guidance, which says councils should tell those receiving care what they will have to pay towards it, before care begins. It said there was “no evidence” the woman received such information.The ombudsman said it could find “no mitigation” for the council without evidence to support its claim the woman was aware of a charge plan in December.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar