By Charlotte Webster-
Somerset Council have been asked to review procedures to ensure officers give proper consideration to requests for a carer to be paid to manage direct payment accounts, and to ensure officers consider arrangements for care when a personal assistant is not available, such as during holidays, and detail these in care and support plans.
The Social Care Ombudsman has recommended that Somerset Council compensate a women whom they woefully failed on many counts, with the sum of £200 . The Council is also to send her a written apology and make a one off payment promised to her for a short break. Sommerset Council was criticised for not increasing her payments to reflect a backdated claim which would have enabled her to manage her finances, which it knew her father was doing on an unpaid basis.
The ombudsman also held the council responsible for failing to backdate the increase in her direct
payments to September 2016. Other failings included removing funding from the woman for four
weeks’ respite care a year without explaining why, or considering how she would manage .
The watchdog also found Somerset Council was at fault for breaching its agreement to make a one off payment for a short break and for not increasing her payments to allow her to manage her
finances, which it knew her father was doing on an unpaid basis.
The woman was assessed by the local clinical commissioning group as eligible for continuing
healthcare (CHC) in June 2018. This was backdated to March 2017 – meaning the CCG, not the
council, has been responsible for meeting her social care, as well as health, needs since then.
Assessment failings.
At the September 2016 review, her family care and support package for social activities said she
now needed daily support with bowel management and subsequent personal care, rather than the
thrice weekly support she was then receiving from district nurses.
The assessing social worker and her manager considered that her Fathers request for additional
support was to meet health, not social care, needs so did not increase her care package.
However, the ombudsman found no evidence that the council explored whether it was necessary for
a district nurse to attend to the woman on a daily basis and if so whether there would be any other
associated social care needs, such as hoisting. It also did not address her Fathers request for
increased support for his daughter with social activities.
In November 2016, after the woman disagreed with the outcome of the September 2016 review, the
council agreed to reassess the woman’s care and support needs, but in what the ombudsman called
an “excessive delay”, she was not allocated a social worker until July 2017. It then took a further 11
months for the assessment to be completed, resulting in her direct payments being increased, in
June 2018.
In July 2018, council records revealed that a manager reneged on an agreement made to requests
for the council to backdate the increased payments for the period from September 2016 to March
2017 when she became eligible for CHC, and to provide a one-off direct payment for the woman to
go on holiday. But the ombudsman found neither payment had been made.
The council also failed to consider whether She was eligible for short breaks or holidays or care, in
its assessment of her needs. While it said she could fund a break with her direct payments, this had
not been addressed in her care and support plan, nor had the council assessed whether her payments
Another issue was the council’s handling of a request to be paid for managing his daughters direct
payment account. Council records from October 2017 showed that the council was aware he was
managing her account, unpaid, that his request would need to be discussed and that he may need to
relinquish his administrator role if he wanted to continue as his daughters PA. However, there is no
evidence that the council considered the request further.
According to council policy, a carer is not allowed to administer the direct payment account due to
potential conflict of interest and safeguarding issues. However, the ombudsman said the council
must consider the circumstances of each case and assess whether there are good reasons to deviate
from the policy, otherwise it risked fettering its discretion.