Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05C11921)

Adult care services                      Further report

3 January 2008

Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council has not complied with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay appropriate compensation for its failure to meet the needs of a young disabled woman. The Council has accepted there had been shortcomings and offered to pay £10,000 compensation, but the Ombudsman considers this is insufficient. She says “I am disappointed by the Council’s response and its unwillingness to recognise that the payment I recommended … reflected the payments that it should have made for [the young woman’s] care over the period.”

The Ombudsman recommended a payment to the young woman’s parents of £1,000 for each week they have had to care for her since August 2005, excluding weeks they have received respite care, plus £3,000 for distress, anxiety, and the time and trouble they have taken in pursuing their complaint. The Council has calculated this would cost it £100,000.

In these circumstances, the Ombudsman has published a further (second) report in which she repeats her recommendations, and hopes that the Council will now implement them in full.

In July 2007, the Ombudsman upheld the complaint made by ‘Mr and Mrs Kaye’ (not their real names for legal reasons) that the Council had failed to meet the needs of their adult disabled daughter. In particular it:

• failed to use the transition period appropriately to find a permanent placement;
• provided no evidence for its assertion that a centre could meet her needs nor provided any sort of transition plan for her move to it;
• carried out a flawed needs assessment before she left her transition placement and failed to carry out an up-to-date needs assessment since July 2005; and
• delayed considering and offering support and help to the couple while they struggled to care for their daughter at home.

The Council accepted two of the Ombudsman’s other recommendations: to undertake an independent professional review of current and future plans to ensure that they meet Miss Kaye’s needs, and to produce a clear plan for her to move to a long term placement capable of meeting her assessed needs.

However, it did not agree to a recommendation that it should report to Ombudsman at six monthly intervals on the progress it has made. The Ombudsman said this recommendation was included to ensure that the Kaye family did not suffer from any further unwarranted delays.

Date Updated: 27/10/08