Summary

Complaint from a man about the package of care he received to help him lead an independent life in accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the Mental Health Act.

The complaint

A report of a joint investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Health Service Ombudsman into a complaint about Plymouth Council and the NHS Plymouth Primary Care trust (the trust).

The care was jointly funded by the council and the trust under a partnership agreement (the Plymouth Mental Health Partnership). The man complained (through his solicitor) that the partnership did not monitor the Care Company effectively in respect of the standard of care and accommodation they provided. He also complained about the trust's response to his complaints about the Care Company.

The man said he had to pay a top up to the amount of rent paid to the Care Company, who provided his accommodation from 2004 to 2009. He said he overpaid by £7,500 but he doesn't have any records of what he paid because the Care Company looked after his bank accounts. The man wanted a detailed explanation of how and why the partnership did not monitor the standard of care provided by the Care Company and why they did not identify and rectify problems earlier. He wanted the money he overpaid reimbursed.

We found that the monitoring of the man's aftercare by the partnership fell below what it should have been and that this was service failure. This led to injustice for the man and his family. We therefore uphold the complaint against the partnership.

Finding and recommendations

To remedy the injustice, we recommend that the council and the trust:

• write jointly to the man to acknowledge the service failure and maladministration we have identified and apologise for the injustices he suffered as a consequence;
• each provide financial redress to the man, not only for the distress and inconvenience he suffered due to poor living conditions and prolonged periods of inadequate aftercare, but also as a remedy for money he should not have had to pay. We accept that there is no absolute proof to verify the sums that the man paid towards rent and non-refundable deposits. However his solicitor made a serious attempt, using data provided by the Care Company that the partnership commissioned, to calculate the extent of the possible financial shortfall the man suffered. On the balance of probability we find the solicitor's calculations to be credible. We note that neither the trust or the council have been able to undermine those calculations, since the data sources they would need to do that (systematic and properly kept records) are not available because of inherent failings in the monitoring of the service that they commissioned. Taken as a whole therefore, we believe that the trust and the council should provide a total financial remedy to the man of £12,000 split equally between both organisations;
• tell us what they have already done to ensure they have learnt the lessons from the failings identified by this upheld complaint; and
• what steps they plan to take, including timescales, to avoid a recurrence of these failings in future.
   

 

Print this page