Council’s “institutionalised indifference” to plight of a woman with disabled children

Archived press release

Date Published: 22/10/09

A family including two seriously disabled children spent three years in unsuitable accommodation as a result of failures by Bury Metropolitan Borough Council.

A family including two seriously disabled children spent three years in unsuitable accommodation as a result of failures by Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (22 October 2009) she says: “The underlying cause was ineffective management that can fairly be described as ‘institutionalised indifference’ – not only to the boys’ needs and their mother’s plight, but to the Council’s duties and responsibilities.”

During this time, Mrs M could only keep her disabled children clean by hosing them down in the garden, strip-washing them in a downstairs toilet, or risking serious injury by getting them upstairs to a small and inadequately-equipped bathroom.

‘Mrs M’ (real names are not used for legal reasons) complained about unreasonable delay before the Council provided housing appropriate to her family’s needs. Two of her five children are seriously disabled by a rare, genetic muscle-wasting condition. They have no mobility, are doubly incontinent, and need 24-hour care and assistance with feeding, dressing, bathing and toileting. The younger of the two is also blind and has severe learning disabilities.

The Ombudsman found that the Council knew from 1998 that the family would need a home with a ground floor bathroom and bedroom and that, from 2000, this would need to be for two children. At that time, the older child was too heavy to be carried upstairs to the bathroom. In 2002 the family were moved to a four-bedroom house with the intention of building a ground floor extension. The Council did not check that this was feasible or develop a ‘fall back’ plan even though the architect expressed grave doubts about planning permission, and 18 months after the family moved, it was refused.

The Council then quickly found a site where a housing association could build a suitable property for the family. However, through no fault of the Council, this was not available until August 2006.

In the meantime, despite quite desperate representations from a care agency manager and a trainee social worker, the Council refused to provide interim adaptations other than a ‘stair climber’ and a hoist in the dining room. Paid carers were not allowed to help Mrs M get her doubly incontinent children to the bathroom. Arrangements for the older child to bathe at a nearby day centre were frustrated by lack of co-operation from the management there and the school transport service. His school withdrew the weekly bath there when the care agency asked to do a risk assessment.

The Ombudsman praises a trainee social worker’s actions as “exemplary” and asks the Council to consider the impact on its front line staff if no effective response is given when management attention is drawn to extreme needs and organisational failings.

From 2004 the Council pursued the obvious long-term solution, and the family moved into a purpose-built property in the summer of 2006.

The Ombudsman recommends the Council to:

• make a personal apology to Mrs M and her family;
• make three annual payments of £6,000 each to Mrs M and her older disabled child;
• create a fund of £5,000 for items and activities chosen by the other children in the family in recognition of the effect on them of the situation;
• review its procedures for dealing with disabled facilities grants; and
• review the leadership capacity in the relevant services.

Report ref no 07C03887