£15,000 compensation for lack of care for disabled young man

Archived press release

Date Published: 18/09/08

Luton Borough Council failed to provide properly for the needs of a profoundly disabled young man. The Ombudsman recommended it to pay £15,000 compensation.

Luton Borough Council failed to provide properly for the needs of a profoundly disabled young man, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White. In his report, issued today (18 September 2008) he says the young man and his family were “in dire straits”, and “[the young man]’s quality of life, and that of his family, was inevitably affected for the worse by the Council’s approach to his problems. And that is a situation that has persisted, in my view, for some three years longer than necessary.”

The Ombudsman recommends the Council to pay the family £15,000, review its procedures and practices, and provide staff training as appropriate.

‘Shahid Ahmed’ (not his real name for legal reasons) suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy and is profoundly disabled. He is now 21 years old, and his parents provide much of his care. His sister complained that the Council failed to explain and put into practice policies relevant to his care, with the result that the family has not received appropriate services from the Council.

The Council received a complaint from the family’s MP about the lack of service provision for Shahid in December 2004. Initially the Council treated it as a request for a disabled facilities grant, and it took over a year to recognise the complaint for what it was. It was only in 2007 that the Council’s own ‘stage 3’ complaint investigation (carried out by an external investigator) was completed and accepted. The investigator largely upheld the complaint, finding that the Council’s approach was not ‘person-centred’. There were delays in making provision for Shahid, including the provision of a hoist. Because their home was not adapted for Shahid’s disability, Mr Ahmed carried his son upstairs to be bathed. The Ombudsman endorsed the criticisms of the Council made by the stage 3 investigator, and criticised the delay in completing the process.

Because the family did not take their advice, occupational therapists made a referral under the Council’s protection of vulnerable adults procedures. The Ombudsman found this use of the procedure inappropriate and hurtful to the family, and said “It beggars belief that the referral was made at all.”

Report ref no 07B07665