Skip to main content

Breach of Duty of Care

In the media last week were many reports of older and disabled people left without care, food and medication because of Norfolk County Council’s failure to provide adequate and consistent home care services. Their explanation was that they had commissioned a new private company to deliver the services and that private company had not been able to recruit sufficient numbers of staff to carry out the work!

In my view this serious failure is a culmination of many smaller failures resulting from the central government policy in the 1980s of “compulsory competitive tendering” - requiring each local authority to contract out to the private sector those services they themselves were, by law, required to provide. So, a simple appropriate example is that the Home Help Service provided directly and efficiently in one form or another by all local authority Social Services Departments then had to be contracted out to, initially, small private, unregulated companies who performed with varying degrees of incompetence, paying their staff the minimum they could get away with.

The awful thing is that Norfolk County Council, as usual with public bodies, is going to get away scot free with this breach of their Duty of Care, scot free with the breach of their duty under the Community Care Act 1990, and scot free with their breach of their Disability Equality Duty (organisations commissioned by a public body have to abide by their parent’s DED and if they don’t, as in this case, the parent body is liable).

If we also look at the principles and competencies in the new “World Class Commissioning” arrangements for the NHS Norfolk’s incompetence in commissioning this private organisation is massive.

It is about time steps were taken (as with the banks) to ensure local authorities are fully accountable. I think they should at least be prosecuted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Perhaps too, some bright solicitor should organise a class action on behalf of those left without services.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Yes! Finally something about trust deed.
Here is my blog post - Trust Deeds Scotland

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.