By Sammie Jones
Surrey Council has been rapped for failing to explain direct payments which caused a young man to miss out on support in line with his preferences.
The local government ombudsman watchdog upheld several complaints made on behalf of the man, who suffers from a learning disability, autism and dyslexia. The female complainant said Surrey Council failed to Audit the account regularly and to
review the support plan since 2013 and review his needs as an adult
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
All local councils are obligated to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their well being and the outcomes they want to achieve. Councils are mandated to also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer, or any other person they might want involved in accordance with the Care Act 2014, section 9.
The eligibility criteria is determined by the presence of a mental or physical impairment or illness that affects their mental well being. This is in accordance with the Care and Support eligibility criteria regulations. A care and support plan must specif the needs contained in the assessment and how the council intends to meet those needs. It must also contain a budget plan which includes the cost to the Local Authority and the amount the person is expected to contribute to those needs.
The complainant contacted the Council’s transitions team to inquire what she could spend the direct payment on three times in September 2014 before finding out the man’s social worker had left. She told us she contacted the duty worker various times between October 2014 and March 2015 and was told she could use the direct payment for gym training for the man and for petrol expenses and football club subscriptions.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
However, to the shame of Surrey Council, the Local Authority’ records failed to include notes of any calls from Mrs D in September 2014. There is a copy of an email she sent to a social worker by asking for clarity on what else she might spend the direct payment on as there was a build-up of unused money in the account.
The Ombudsman concluded that Surrey council miserably failed to explain to the man what the woman’s direct payments could be spent on, despite repeated attempts by her to establish this.This caused much distress and frustration. She also said the council had failed to review his needs as an adult.
The ombudsman ordered the disgraced Surrey Council to pay the woman £250 and the man £750. The council was also ordered to issue him with a care and support plan. The man’s personal budget of £180 included a support plan from the council to fund £80 personal training and a similar amount on help from a personal assistant around shopping, cooking and using public transport. The direct payment also ordered a return of unused money and a repayment of any outgoings inconsistent with the agreement. The findings of the Ombudsman are an embarrassment to Surrey Council who demonstrated incompetence in their handling of this case.
After several communications with the transitions team on various occasions inquiring how the direct payment was to be spent, the man was told the money could go on gym training, petrol expenses and football club subscriptions. The man was also told the money could be used for driving lessons subject to a manager’s approval after clarity was sought from the council with regards to the payments. Although it was recorded that a new assessment and revised support plan may be necessary, a year passed without any review being carried out. During this time the council approved payments for driving lessons, but also made a demand for the woman to repay £1,000 which it said had gone on unauthorised spending.
Making matters worse was the fact that whilst an assessment of need was completed in September 2016, a new support plan still failed to materialise. The investigation found that thousands of pounds of unspent payments accumulated in the man’s account because of the resulting uncertainty of what they could be used for.
The council later backtracked and said direct payments could not “in any case” be used for driving lessons, and that it would fund some more in recognition of its poor communications. The ombudsman’s investigation condemned Surrey council for failing to communicated the outcomes of a review of the man’s support plan for three consecutive years from 2014-2016
The assessment concluded the man was eligible for care and support in the areas of managing and maintaining nutrition, personal hygiene and a habitable home environment. He was also concluded to be eligible for developing relationships, making use of facilities/services in the community including public transport and recreation , accessing and engaging in work/training
Support to make decisions
“The failure to communicate the review outcome caused avoidable uncertainty,”[FOR THE MAN] the ombudsman’s report said. “And it meant she did not use the direct payment fully because she was unsure what she could spend it on. I consider she received mixed messages.”
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar