Monday, September 11, 2017

Lewisham Council Failing Children. #Autism

From Community Care.

A council has been criticised for reducing the care and support packages of two brothers without telling their mother the reason for the decision.

The brothers, aged 10 and 11, both have autism and were receiving care packages from Lewisham council’s children’s services, which each included seven hours a week in short break payments, and 24 nights a year in respite accommodation.

The Local Government Ombudsman found that a social worker had reviewed the boys’ care without giving the mother a chance to comment, and had taken the report straight  to the council’s care package panel, which decided to reduce their care.

The panel decided that the younger boy did not need respite accommodation, and also cut his direct payments from seven hours a week to four. It also reduced the older boy’s respite stays from 24 nights to 12, the investigation found.

The ombudsman criticised the council for failing to give the mother a copy of the assessment, or the reasons for the changes to her sons’ care, and for its delay in taking her complaint through the statutory children’s complaint procedure.

He told the council to pay the woman £550 in recognition of the distress caused to her and said it should make the panel decision-making process more transparent.

The council has accepted the ombudsman’s recommendations.

‘No explanation’

The ombudsman’s investigation found that in early 2015, the council wrote to the mother to confirm the original care package for the younger boy.

However, a few months later, it contacted her again to say that the respite provider could not say when the boy would get this provision because of its waiting list.

In January 2016, a social worker from the council’s children with complex needs team undertook the review of both boys’ care. At the end of that month, she took the assessment to the care package panel, which is made up of managers from the service.

The ombudmsan investigation found that the social worker had failed to involve the mother in the assessment, or provide her with a copy to check. The social worker also gave “no explanation or reasons” for the panel’s decision to reduce the boys’ care.

“The failure to give reasons meant she [the mother] had no understanding of why the council wanted to change her sons’ care package,” the ombudsman’s report said.

“This caused frustration and a loss of confidence in the council.”

‘Incorrect procedure’

The mother complained to the council in February 2016.

The ombudsman found the council at fault for responding under its corporate complaints procedure, when it should have used the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

When the ombudsman challenged this, the council was slow to arrange for the complaint to go through the correct procedure, the report said, and it also failed to keep the mother updated on what was happening with her complaint.

The ombudsman also criticised the council for missing the statutory timescale for dealing with the complaint. The ombudsman found that it took eight months, from the council accepting it had used the wrong procedure in August 2016, for completing stage 2 of the process (the investigation). This should normally take 25 days working days (or up to 65, in exceptional circumstances).

The ombudsman’s report recommended that the council conduct a review of the operation of its procedures for identifying and dealing with complaints involving children and young people, to ensure it meet its statutory duties in the future.

It also said that the council should make the care package panel decision-making process more transparent, by sharing assessments with all parties before the panel meets, and ensuring that the panel gives written reasons for its decisions.

‘No input in review’

Michael King, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “In this case, the children’s situation had not changed, but Lewisham council reduced the level of care it provided. The mother has been left upset about not knowing why their support was reduced, or having any kind of input in its review.”

He added that councils “should know by now” how to identify a children’s services complaint and use the correct process, which has been in place for over 10 years.

A Lewisham council spokesperson said: “We accept the ombudsman’s findings and we are acting on the recommendations and have apologised.

“We have already reviewed our processes and procedures that are in place to ensure this situation doesn’t happen again.”

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/09/08/council-criticised-cutting-care-packages-two-brothers-explanation/

Saturday, September 09, 2017

Liverpool Council accused of snooping after "intercepting" emails between resident and councillor.

From the Liverpool Echo.

Liverpool council has been accused of “intercepting” emails between a resident and an elected councillor.

Liberal Democrat councillor Andrew Makinson received an email from community campaigner and former councillor Josie Mullen, but not before it has been seen and added to by a council officer.
Cllr Makinson has described the move as “extremely disturbing” and said everyone should be entitled to confidential discussions with their elected representatives without “council snoopers” looking over their shoulder.

But the city council said it has been forced to treat Ms Mullen’s contact with the authority in a specific way because of her “scattergun” approach to raising concerns.

Ms Mullen – a former Liberal Democrat councillor who has also campaigned for the Green Party – had contacted Cllr Makinson with emails that raised concerns about developments in the city – including the failed New Chinatown project – as well as questioning the actions of the council’s building control teams.

But this email did not go directly to Cllr Makinson – instead being diverted to the council’s customer feedback team manager, Andrea McGuire, who works in the chief executive’s office.


This was then forwarded to Cllr Makinson with additional comments from Ms McGuire, who attempted to address the concerns raised.

The email explains: “Please find attached correspondence, which has been sent to you by Josie Mullen.

“Ms Mullen’s contacts with the council are being dealt with under the Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Policy and her emails are on a divert to my team.”



Josie Mullen from Childwall, protesting against the sale of Sefton Park Meadows. (Image: Liverpool Echo)
The email ends by stating: “In line with Ms Mullen’s vexatious status with the Council, we would not expect you to respond to Ms Mullen, although ultimately that is a matter for you to decide.”

Cllr Makinson was outraged at the interception of an email sent directly to him.

He said: “It’s extremely disturbing that the council are now preventing councillors from receiving information from potential whistleblowers.

“Everyone should have a right to confidential discussions with their elected representatives without council snoopers looking over their shoulder.”

He added: “We’re constantly told by Labour that the council has no money to provide basic services, but they can waste money employing a team to intercept messages and then tell councillors what to think about them. No wonder people worry about the state of democracy in Liverpool.”


Responding, a spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: “Liverpool City Council is committed to dealing with all customers fairly and impartially. We do not normally limit the contact customers have with us, however in a small number of cases, customers pursue their concerns in a way that is unacceptable or unreasonable, which is when we apply the Managing Unreasonable Behaviour policy.

“Under the policy – which is never used lightly – we do not stop anyone from contacting the Council or from accessing services, although we may apply restrictions to the way in which they do this.”



He added: “In Ms Mullen’s case, she was advised to use a single point of contact.

“Ms Mullen ignored this advice and adopted what we consider to be a ‘scattergun approach’ where she raised the same concerns via multiple routes.

“In light of this, the council took a decision to divert all emails from Ms Mullen to the single point of contact mailbox.”

Ms Mullen – who said she is considering legal action over her treatment by the council – denies that her complaints have been vexatious or repetitive.


She said: “If you look at my Freedom of Information requests – every single one is different.

“I have sent countless emails to Ged Fitzgerald and the council about the failure to respond to these requests.

“None of these messages are abusive or obsessive and I will be taking my case to a solicitor.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-council-accused-snooping-after-13587923