JP was awaiting services for a brain injury for 12 months. His partner/carer complained successfully to the LGO about Care Act delays and omissions. His care manager said that care packages were capped at £700 a week, meaning his partner could not return to work. A few legal letters later from a #CASCAIDr adviser, and after copying in the Leader of the Council, the care manager said this “I have since discussed this with my manager and this is not the case; services are not capped therefore I apologise for any distress caused.”
A woman receives care at home from nurses funded by CHC from the CCG and a parent. On CHC review, disputed DST domain scores were decided by the Panel itself, and the Rationale was not signed. Her mother was called ‘disrespectful’ when she flagged up the breach of the National Framework! Input from a @CASCAIDr adviser has secured ongoing CHC status and nursing care, challenged the proposed budget for irrationality (including a +60% cut in the trachy bibs supplied monthly) – and sought retrospective funding for the ever decreasing SOCIAL care in the past service.
A man’s parents shared his care with a care home but have frequent difficulties re handling of injuries, risks, handover and supervision. He has no written care plan from the CCG but it has been suggested that his parents should sign a ‘communication contract’! Input from a @CASCAIDr adviser flagged up that a CARE Act approach to due PROCESS would have required consideration of IMPACT in all the CHC DST domain scores, a response that defensibly addressed impact, and sums showing the final budget reflects the COST of meeting unmet needs.
A care home contracted to a CCG gave a young woman 4 weeks’ notice after caring for her for 9 yrs despite owing art 8 obligations under the Human Rights Act (like all homes with publicly funded clients). She is now being helped to move on to supported living. CASCAIDr’s advice helped prevent eviction and has informed negotiations about funding housing and care. It’s addressed the inappropriate imposition of an advocate, deputyship issues and how to access funding for services not automatically accessible to those living in tenancies.
Parent deputies got a £2K bill for 2 yrs jointly funded past respite for this young man. DWP benefits had covered his share of household bills (reimbursed as necessaries) and items that were arguably DRE. Retrospective charging CAN be lawful, in certain case, BUT CASCAIDr flagged up that the agencies’ inability to trace any rationale for the old joint funding would stop the LA from recovering any more than 50% of the ‘arrears’ – and OTHER public law flaws in the council’s process would also complicate any action to recover even 50%!:
Devoted parents had ultimately lost the care of this young man over a dispute about £10K charges for earlier care. A previous JR had led to a consent order with no MENTION of charges but the man’s mum was removed as deputy, and safeguarding proceedings were started. CASCAIDr advice was that s2 LGA negated the LA’s point that the Nat. Ass. Act positively REQUIRED a charge; the parents were able to disprove the allegation of impropriety – the CoP held the charges irrecoverable. Parents are now focused on getting their son’s services revised.
If someone goes completely blind and then later deaf (it happens) s/he can become completely dependent on technology, human help and courage to get through daily living, although remaining fully mentally capacitated. CASCAIDr has helped a man in that situation challenge his council for not reviewing his needs since the Care Act (2015); not providing an assessor with competence in dual sensory impairment, not increasing his package since his deafness set in, and not allowing for tech to count as DRE.
A man living in Shared Lives accommodation but his carers suddenly needed him to move on, in view of the severe illness of one of the couple. He’d also been excluded from a local day opportunity because he was unsettled, and the council needed to be galvanised. CASCAIDr’s advice to the man’s mother led her to get him to give her a power of attorney, in case a tenancy had to be signed in a new setting; and clarified the council’s obligations whenever an aspect of a care plan ceases to be delivered: there’s a duty to find an alternative.
A woman has 24hr care in her home as a tenant, in a care package not reviewed for YEARS. The council had agreed ages ago in writing not to change her package without her consent, but wanted to re-assess now and use ‘Just Checking’ to record movement at home. CASCAIDr’s advice has secured acknowledgement of the written agreement, flagged up that the parents hold welfare LPA for consent purposes, and that Just Checking cannot be relevant to assessment, given 24hr care, when it can’t distinguish the woman’s movements from the carers’.
A parent with a severely disabled adult daughter found everyone agreed that the council’s arrangements weren’t working – but nobody seemed to be doing anything about it. The parent was sent hither and thither to look at hopelessly inadequately provisioned settings and told No, regarding a placement that WAS apparently suitable – with no other alternatives being offered. After CASCAIDr set out Care Act breaches in words of one syllable, there was a complete ‘about turn’ and the funding was found for the previously identified suitable placement.