Recently on SNJ's Facebook page, someone accused us of being too hard
on local authorities who were 'trying their best'. Actually, I know
first hand that many, many people working in LAs really are working
diligently and with very large caseloads. I would encourage parents who
have had a good experience to tell us about it, so we can herald good practice.
However - there's always a however, unfortunately - too often parents
are still being told the wrong information or LAs are not playing by
the rules (i.e, the law). Too many in SEND and in social care
departments are still behaving as if the Children and Families Act was
just a bad dream, best ignored. This is very perplexing to me as the law
is clear to read and to follow, so what's happening to make compliance a
bonus rather than the minimum expected?
Recently, I heard about something happening to a number of families
regarding attempts to get social care help, that needs to be
highlighted. Hopefully those who ARE doing good work in LAs can make
sure it doesn't happen in their departments.
Nathan Davies of solicitors HCB, has written to explain what, in his experience, has been happening.
Threatened with care proceedings after asking for support...
It is common, in my experience, for parents of children with autism
to feel that concerns expressed to local authority professionals are
often discarded, or that there is a distinct lack of understanding of
the condition itself. This leads to disputes and disagreements between
the parties. These issues tend to arise once parents have realised that
they cannot continue without extra support or an alternative placement
be sourced for their son or daughter. The request being made is often
the trigger point for intervention in some form by the authority;
usually via its social services department.
The prevalence of social services intervention has steadily risen in recent times. In practice, the possibility of it being
initiated by the authority remains on the increase, despite this being a
highly controversial, and often inappropriate, tactic.
Your word against theirs
The problem parents in this position face is that it is often their
word against that of school staff or local authority professionals and
that is never a good starting position. The root issue however, is the
aforementioned lack of understanding of the condition itself. Those on
the high-functioning end of spectrum often present very differently
across a variety of settings. The fact that a child presents as very shy
and reserved in school and then explodes into one exhibiting
challenging behaviour at home, is very hard for some professionals to
fathom and can lead to them questioning parenting ability.
Parents struggling to cope and requiring additional support in the
family home, are often deterred by the threat of intense scrutiny and
criticism by social services. The possibility of raising child
protection issues or launching even care proceedings (in extreme cases)
are tools local authorities are increasingly using, especially during
these times of austerity and public sector cuts. But cuts can in no way
be an excuse for such unnecessarily heavy-handed approaches being
employed.
Nathan Davies
Professional guidelines
The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) has guidelines
relating to standards of conduct, performance and ethics each registrant
must uphold (this includes social workers). One of the pillars of
practice is for the professional to ‘work within the limits of their knowledge and skills’.
Given this, it is fundamental to ensure that each professional is
appropriately trained and/or knowledgeable to a reasonable degree in
autism to discharge their duties to the child and family appropriately.
If this is not done, one cannot expect a proper assessment of their
social care needs to be undertaken; thereby polluting the entire
process. Without such understanding of the condition, the HCPC
guidelines specify that the matter should be referred to another
practitioner if what the chid needs would be beyond the scope of their
practice but this is rarely, if ever, done. It cannot be emphasised
enough how important this is, especially when it is a requirement for
each HCPC registrant to ‘promote and protect the interests of service users and carers’.
Below are some anonymised case examples which show how these strategies are being used by local authorities throughout the UK:
Case Study 1:
This concerned parents in England of a child with high-functioning
ASD. Given her high-achievements at school, the child had attended
mainstream school well into her teenage life (without an EHCP). Even
when concerns were raised over challenging behaviour in the home as a
result of her inability to cope at school, these were immediately
treated as the parents over-exaggerating the child’s difficulties, even
after they had secured a diagnosis for her from a multi-disciplinary
team in the private sector.
The local authority, when requested to assess her additional learning
needs, took action; they proceeded with social services intervention, a
flawed and malicious assessment and subsequently placed the child on
the Child Protection Register. After seeking legal advice, the family
challenged the authority, ultimately leading to a retraction. The child
has now been issued with an EHCP with the SEN Tribunal agreeing that a
specialist ASD placement be named.
Case Study 2:
This related to a family in South Wales, who again experienced great
difficulties with their local authority. The child had a diagnosis of
Pathological Demand Avoidance but the parents had been unsuccessful in
securing a specialist placement for their son via the Tribunal process,
with the assistance of an advocate.
Given the extreme levels of aggressive behaviour in the home
environment (and his inability access a school at all), it was
imperative for the authority to accommodate the child, pursuant to
section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The authority did so, but
thereafter sought to target the family with a variety of unfounded
allegations, unlawful s.47 investigations and blame for the child’s
behaviour was attributed to perceived ‘bad parenting’, a manifestly
unreasonable position to hold.
These issues were appropriately resolved in the parents' favour, who
were issued with a comprehensive and unreserved apology from the
director of social services. The child now attends a suitable local
provision and is thriving.
We need to be aware...
Unfortunately, scenarios such as the above are becoming more common
and intimidation of parents who are simply trying to get help for their
child is often difficult for many to comprehend. Parents being penalised
or vilified for seeking support for their disabled child is not right
in any society, yet it appears that in 21st century Britain
this is perfectly acceptable in some LAs. Awareness of this issue being
made known to the public can only help parents in similar situations.
Unlike the report last year authored by Margaret Kenealy Jones, this
report has not been used to revise history nor used as a vehicle to
whitewash unprofessional behaviour and systemic failings within the
children's department of Cyngor Gwynedd and this is to be welcomed.
Saying that the report does appear to have some glaring ommissions and anoma-lies -
"Over the years, the Customer Care Officer have successfully managed to
establish close working links with the teams, managers and the legal
section as a means of discussing and resolving issues. This is reflected
in the low number of complaints reaching Stage 2 of the Complaints
Procedure.
It is fair to say that there has been a clear trend over the past 3
years, that theChildren and Family Support Department have not had a
complaint escalate toStage 2. This is down to the professionalism the
Team Managers and SeniorManagers show when dealing with complainants;
they understand theimportance of a local resolution and by discussing
directly with the complainant they are able to address matters as soon
as possible..."
Er...but Mrs Hughes there is a stage 2 complaint ongoing against
Children and Family Support Department raised on the 25th May and due
for completion any day now. Why has the complaint not been included in
your report figures ?
I notice the Adult services acknowledge there is an ongoing stage 2
investigation and though not completed is included in their figures.
Marian Parry Hughes also crows that the department have had no complaint escalate to stage 2 over the past three years.
But that is down to one senior manager, Aled Gibbard, closing a
complaint - without informing the complainant and your department
refusing to escalate another complaint to the second stage, hence the
intervention of the Ombudsman.
And knowing that to then go on and write -
"In comparison with other Local Authorities in North Wales, it is
understood that Gwynedd have been successful in managing complaints at
Stage 1 whereas other Local Authorities have a higher proportion of
complaints progress to Stage 2".
and diss the conduct of other LA's in Wales is...distasteful to say the least.
More info on Gwynedd Council here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
Mark James' property dealings down in Cardiff Bay seem to have reached the ears of the Western Mail today, with an interesting article about residents' concerns over the management of their flats.
WalesOnline 14th August 2017
Blogger Jac o'the North recently went into a lot more detail in two posts, Baywatch 1 & 2, both of which I linked to here and urge you to read.
Mr James is a director of various Right To Manage (RTM) companies for
Century Wharf flats and is also a director of a private company Building
and Estate Solutions Today Ltd (BEST) set up in March 2017 with two
business associates. All this information is freely available on
Companies House website.
Aside from his burgeoning management empire, Mr James' property
portfolio includes at least one flat in Century Wharf and two in another
complex in Cardiff Bay, and he is also a registered landlord. (He also
has a £250 per month hold over Caebrwyn's humble abode for his damages
from his illegally funded counterclaim).
Amongst the issues some residents have with Mr James and the management
of the Century Wharf complex is that flats are let for overnight stays,
Airbnb, etc which is contrary to the terms of the leaseholds, as well as
disturbing for the long term residents. I am also told that Mr James
and his business associates seems to have 'taken over' the RTM Board and
there is some speculation that the new company, BEST, may be seeking to
contract maintenance and management work for themselves, and expand
their interests elsewhere, not just Century Wharf.
The other issue is the appointment as a manager in the complex of a
young lady, a former tenant of one of Mr James' flats, who, according to
sources, has little or no experience in the field of property
management and was introduced to the post by Mr James himself...
Then there is the manner in which Mr James has dealt with criticism, and
I am told that he runs things in the Bay in an extraordinarily similar
fashion to the way he runs the council. Needless to say, this is not a
good thing. There are claims to legal advice which are never disclosed,
claims to ministerial 'contacts', and veiled legal threats to those who
question his actions.
Having been involved in litigation with Mr James myself for a number of
years I have absolutely no reason to doubt any of the claims and
allegations I have heard, and I've heard quite a few.
His responses to residents, as reported in the Western Mail article are
quite revealing. He dismisses their concerns over the short stay lets as
having no evidential basis; stag parties and hen-dos are no more
disturbing that long term lets..says he, from the comfort, and quiet, of
his home in Carmarthen...
He then goes on to claim that there is not only a 'cancer' in the
complex (presumably this is a charming reference to dissatisfied
residents) but the young lady's appointment was all above board; having a
personal knowledge of the 'candidate' was an advantage, apparently, and
avoided all the fuss of advertising for the post...
I'm sure readers are getting the drift by now, and that Mr James has
quite a time consuming 'hands-on' approach to his affairs in the Bay...
With that in mind, and let's not forget the many months spent chasing
myself through the civil and criminal court, let alone his extensive
involvement with the Swansea City Deal, isn't it time he was asked how
he squeezes in his £170,000 a year role as chief executive of
Carmarthenshire Council? And, for the avoidance of doubt, has anyone
asked about any potential conflicts of interest yet?
And a final point, if Mr James is content to take public money to pursue his legal affairs, and use council facilities as if they were his own,
who's to say he hasn't furthered his own business (or other) interests
in exactly the same manner, and with exactly the same arrogance?
Freedom of Information responses from Carmarthenshire Council can be a mixed bag.
Sometimes they try to baffle you with b******t, (appointment of
Monitoring Officer, Linda Rees Jones) and sometimes there are bizarre
refusals (top secret transfer of public toilets to community councils).
Occasionally, a few interesting beans are spilled, (the, er, 'car park
deal', released whilst the chief executive happened to be confined to
his potting shed courtesy of Gloucestershire police) whilst sometimes
they're met with hellfire, brimstone, and raging defensiveness (asking
for correspondence between County Hall and an evangelical church).
My latest FOI request concerned the Wellness Village thingy at Delta
Lakes, Llanelli. More specifically, how much the council has spent on
the project so far.
My request was clear and asked for information from 2013 to date. I also
asked for the cost of any 'works' to be detailed in the response.
The response duly arrived, scant in detail (a hallmark of the whole
project so far) but, aside from the match funding from other partners,
the figure for the council itself was £32,597.50.
Unfortunately the information only went back to 2016, not 2013 as I'd
requested, and didn't include any of the 'works' such as preparing and
raising the site so the whole thing doesn't get washed away. It's not
called Delta Lakes for nothing.
Given the omissions I asked the council to review their response, the
outcome of which arrived yesterday with a new figure, slightly erm,
higher than the first at £564,427.72...
At some point soon the council might even get round to submitting the planning application, which in itself has cost £34,000...
The full thread of the FOI request, and responses, can be seen here. There
will be more on the Wellness venture in due course, and I've also asked
Welsh Government for some figures, but this is an illustration of how,
when a council doesn't routinely publish spending details, and has a
culture of defensiveness; scrutiny and monitoring can be problematic.
Whilst I'm on the subject, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill
is slowly wending its way through parliament and, as the title suggests,
hopes to extend the reach of the FOI Act. The Statement of Purpose (in
full here) sums up the aims;
'The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill will seek to make housing associations, local
safeguarding children boards, Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and the Housing
Ombudsman public authorities for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, whilst
making information held by persons contracting with public authorities subject to the Freedom of
Information Act 2000...'
All very welcome and interestingly it includes Returning Officers. A
request I made some years ago concerning fees paid to our Returning
Officer/chief executive was considered by Mr James to be an outrageous
invasion of his personal space...I might as well have been asking for
his bank details and PIN number.
(all previous FOI requests mentioned in this post can be found by searching this blog, they're there somewhere!)
As the council scratches around to fund the 'plan' it not only plunders
most of the 'Development Fund' (waiving aside the 25% limit) for new
enterprises, but proposes the sale of Ammanford Town Hall, the council's
main customer service centre in the east of the county. Rumours are
also rife that the recently refurbished Llandeilo offices are shutting
up shop, leaving no customer services in the entire eastern area.
In the event the Item was deferred, hopefully to have a rethink. Not
least of all because these proposals, which included the sale of public
buildings, were for an Exec Board decision only, with no reference to
full council at all.
The Executive Board...and the chief executive, just catching up with Cneifiwr's blog ;-)
You will recall, at the last council meeting, that the chief executive
was very, erm, persuasive about requiring a new Director, mainly to
oversee all these 'exciting projects' and his assorted 'visions'. The
post of Assistant Chief Executive (Regeneration and Policy) was to be
made redundant to make way for the new Directorship of White Elephants.
An amendment was put forward by Labour to cap the new salary (and that
for a new Director of Education) to £112k per year from the proposed
£123k pa.
The chief executive, Mr James, became even more 'persuasive' and the vote was lost.
No time was lost and the advert went out immediately (all posts over
£100k must be advertised nationally) only to strangely disappear a few
days later. Even more mysterious was an urgent convening of 'Appointment
Committee A', which met today.
According to several reliable sources I was spot on with my earlier prediction as to who strolled, permanently, into the new Directorship post
with an extra £20k per year. Apparently there were a few other
enquiring applicants (who must have been remarkably quick off the mark)
but they were rapidly deemed unsuitable..leaving a shortlist of one and a
recommendation from the chief executive.
It's amazing how quickly the wheels of Carmarthenshire local government
can turn when a new directorship is on the cards... to the casual
observer it might appear that the whole exercise was pre-planned. Oddly,
there's no rush to appoint the new Director of Education and that
process will take place later in the year, maybe there's no one in the
pipleline for that one...
For what it's worth I also understand that the vote was not entirely unanimous.
But back to the vote at the last meeting of full council over directors'
pay. To most observers, aside from political activists and point
scorers this was a rare opportunity for councillors to reflect the views
of most residents and make a small stand against the eye-watering
salary levels of our little rural county's top brass. As I said, it was
lost by 32 votes to 18, with 14 abstentions.
Here are the 32 councillors who voted against tackling fat cat pay;
Plaid Cymru;
Glynog Davies, Quarter bach
Handel Davies, Llandovery
Emlyn Dole, Llannon
Hazel Evans, Cenarth
Tyssul Evans, Llangynderyn
Ken Howell, Llangeler
Peter Hughes Griffiths, Carmarthen Town North
David Jenkins, Glanamman
Alun Lenny, Carmarthen Town West
Dorian Phillips, Llanboidy
Susan Phillips, Hengoed
Emlyn Schiavone, Carmarthen Town West
Dai Thomas, Pen-y-Groes
Gareth Thomas, Hendy
Gwyneth Thomas, Llangennech
Elwyn Williams, Llangunnor
Dorian Williams, Abergwili
Eirwyn Williams, Cynwal Gaeo
Independent Group;
Sue Allen, Whitland
Arwel Davies, Cilycwm
Anthony Davies, Llandybie
Ieuan Davies, Llandybydder
Joseph Davies, Manordeilo and Salem
Rob Evans, Dafen
Phillip Hughes, St Clears
Andrew James, Llangadog
Giles Morgan, Swiss Valley
Hugh Shepardson, Pembrey
Mair Stephens, St Ishmael
Jane Tremlett, Laugharne
Edward Thomas, Llandeilo
The abstentions included several Plaid Cymru councillors, and one
independent voted with Labour. The full list will appear in the Minutes.
Update 2nd August;
Also on Monday's Exec Board agenda was an exempt item about the
Guildhall in Carmarthen town centre. This was bought by the council last
year for £225,000 from the Crown Court service after the court closed.
The Carmarthen Journal reports that an heritage funding bid of £100k to repair and maintain the listed building has now failed.
What is worse is that the £225,000 came out of the social care budget. It was an Exec Board decision with no reference to full council.
Whether the county council will step in and cough up the necessary cash,
given the current drive to flog off public buildings, remains to be
seen, but, as I reported last year when they bought it, the warnings signs were already there.
I notice Cyngor Gwynedd appear not to have updated their website
and still make no mention that one of the cases that they reference has
been ongoing for years.
First contact with the Gwynedd Children and Supporting Families Team was in 2007/8 and was appalling.
The family had to endure missed appointments, staff that were
untrained and abusive comments from those involved in the child’s care.
MSBP and poor parenting were all thrown at the family.
One so called professional, Dawn Wimpory, failed to diagnose the child and so many years have been wasted because of it.
Perhaps you should have tried engaging him with music therapy, Dawn ?
That would have taken longer than the 20 minute consultation you gave the child.
A comment from one of the service managers in a review meeting “If
he was my child…..” led to the manager going off sick when the
Independent Investigators tried to interview him for an explanation.
An illness that lasted for months and so the report was published without him being interviewed.
The report does mention Llyr Ap Rhisiart’s absence and the fact
that when he does finally return from illness he would not be in the
same job.
But the question remains, Mr Ap Rhisiart.
What would you have done with the child who has Autism, PDA and other complex issues if he was yours ?
Someone even suggested clearing the child’s bedroom and locking them in.
The child was 7 years old.
The Investigators found 16 points of complaint and bad practise – including lost correspondence and files – all upheld.
That was in 2010 and nothing has changed. In fact, the situation is far worse.
So I say again to Cyngor Gwynedd raising a complaint does not make
people unreasonable – it simply means that unprofessional standards and
bad behaviour should always be challenged.
