Link to case: LGO final Decision 14 019 277
Points of interest and factually incorrect data in the Local Governemt Ombudsman final decision case ref: 14-019-277
- This was during a period where my brother suffered dental pain for eighteen weeks without treatment or relief, requiring treatment at the local hospital for five fillings and three extractions; two of which were infected. During this time his appointed social worker did not attend a meeting with me and a dentist.
He was given one month notice to leave M Court from 25 October 2013, yet did not move until 4th December 2013 and without preparation.
- Initially, my brother appeared more settled and supported at the new home. However, this has deteriorated since, examples being the prolonged fluid deprivation which lasted months, ill-fitting and torn clothes, damages spectacles, an increase in weight of approximately 5 stones (31.7 kilos) in two years, and suffering a fall where he was left for two days before professional medical attention was sought; resulting in a hospital visit and overnight stay.
- Factually incorrect. The total time from October 25th, 2013 to 2nd December 2013 is 39 days. H House only became apparent on 27th November 2013, as was stated in the recording for the meeting of 28th November 2013. My brother was moved on 4th December 2013. This meaning it was in fact 34 days from 25th October to 27th November 2013 before H House was identified as a possible residence, and a further seven days until my brother moved; a total of 42 days.
There are also inaccuracies in the best interest decision record; including two attendees missing from the documented record of the meeting and questionable metadata in the document properties.
- Factually inaccurate. I was not invited to the meeting of 14th November 2013, or in fact aware that such a best interests meeting was taking place; Evident in Appendix 7, page 15, Telephone call to the manager of **** ***** 01568****** 15/11/2013 at 10:23, which clearly stated that the manager was not aware of this meeting either.
- In the decision, it also states item 19 ” The Council’s records show why this did not happen in this case. Its case notes of actions and discussions involving B over the period of his move show officers considered at least eleven other placements but all were unsuitable. This is untrue, my brother was not involved in discussions and nor were eleven placements considered, as can be evidenced via other documents and recordings.
Having been a voluntary member of the Local Government Ombudsman advisory forum for approximately a year, I, unfortunately, and from personal experience, found a lack of impartiality and understanding where it involved social care; with a bias toward Herefordshire Council.
After I had become suspicious that the investigator handling our case was biased toward the local authority, due to several factors, in particular, accepting a Herefordshire Council employee’s statement of my phone conversation with them as truthful rather than the audio recording of our conversation and ignoring factually inaccurate data; I researched the investigator.
I found the investigator dealing with the case, was before our case, a speaker at an annual conference for public sector planning support staff, the investigator’s presentation was “How to avoid being investigated by the LGO.”
I raise this at the LGO forum I attended, as I believe many members of the public would consider such as lacking impartiality.