Advocacy, Involvement and Participation

Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust v Mercer – a possession action to recover a hospital bed from a patient no longer needing to be there

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Assessing for incapacity where it is relevant to Care Act functions, Authority to consent on behalf of others to touching, bodily interventions, restraint or deprivation of liberty, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Choice of Accommodation post Care Act, Delay and non-commissioning, Due process rights in care planning, Duties and powers to involve others, Hospital Discharge since Covid, How NHS services and Continuing NHS Health Care fit in with the Care Act, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Relevance of mental capacity for Choice of Accommodation Rights, The relevance of Mental Capacity (and incapacity) for Care Planning, and who is the decision-maker, The types of accommodation arrangements to which Choice Rights apply, Timeliness and the duty to meet needs - unconscionable delay /

[2024] EWHC 2515 (KB) (4 October 2024)   https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2515.html FACTS:  Ms Mercer, the defendant to this action for possession in the ordinary civil court, is wheelchair dependent, requires support with her personal care and medication, and also has diagnoses of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. She has lived in residential accommodation for almost […]

Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust v Mercer – a possession action to recover a hospital bed from a patient no longer needing to be there Read More »

LGSCO finds Bristol City Council at fault for failing to make and record clear best interest decisions when the situation required it

Leave a Comment / Advocacy LGO, Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Act advocacy rights for Care Planning, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Plans and Cuts LGO, Delay, Delay In General LGO, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Due process rights in care planning, Failings to Assess, Reassess, Review LGO, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Intro to Ombudsman reports RE Advocacy, Involvement, Information sharing and Consultation, Intro to Ombudsman reports RE Delay in General, Intro to Ombudsman reports RE mental capacity and best interests decision-making, Involvement and advocacy rights for a Care Act revision process, Mental Capacity Act provisions relevant to care or support plan revisions, Mental Capacity LGO, Power of attorney and deputyship - scope and limitations, Relevance of mental capacity for Choice of Accommodation Rights, Restitution LGO, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), Safeguarding, Harm, Deprivation of Liberty LGO, Statutory Advocacy (Care Act, Mental Capacity Act, Mental Health Act), The relevance of Mental Capacity (and incapacity) for Care Planning, and who is the decision-maker, Timeliness and the duty to meet needs - unconscionable delay /

Decision date:   19 May 2024 Summary:  The LGSCO investigated a complaint made in relation to the support provided to an adult, after the adult’s mother and main carer passed away. It found that the Council had failed to follow the Best Interests decision-making process in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and make a

LGSCO finds Bristol City Council at fault for failing to make and record clear best interest decisions when the situation required it Read More »

Surrey Police v PC (by his Litigation Friend the OS, Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, and Surrey County Council

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Article 5 the right to liberty, Article 5 the right to liberty, Choice, Control and Risk, related to the legal framework for care planning under various legislative provisions, Duties and powers to involve others, Emergencies and vital acts justifying deprivation of liberty before a court application is heard, Health and Safety, How the Care Act fits in with the Mental Health Act (and s117 aftercare), Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Relevance of Mental Capacity to Care Planning, Risk management in the context of the Care Act and other legislative duties regarding care services, Safeguarding under the Care Act, The involvement of the Court of Protection in care planning under various public functions /

Factual overview Surrey Police made an urgent application to the High Court to authorise the deprivation the liberty of PC, a 26-year-old in police custody.  In her judgment, Theis J focused on the relevant practice in similar situations where vulnerable individuals were in a state of severe distress in police custody, as well as on

Surrey Police v PC (by his Litigation Friend the OS, Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, and Surrey County Council Read More »

What is the difference between an assessment and a review? And do social workers need to be upfront about which they’re conducting?

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Data Protection Legislation in Adult Social or Health Care, Due process in eligibility decision-making under the Care Act, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Due process rights in care planning, Eligibility under various legislative frameworks for care and support, Failings to Assess, Reassess, Review Q&As, Information sharing to relatives, advocates and outsiders to the statutory process, Involvement and advocacy rights for a Care Act revision process, Involvement in Care Planning during the process (all types of care planning for adults), Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Q&As on Failings regarding Assessments, Re-assessments, Reviews, Review of the Care Plan - scheduled, requested and urgent review, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), Revision process under s27 Care Act - proportionate re-assessment, a new eligibility decision and fresh care planning /

An assessment identifies the person’s full extent of difficulties having anything to do with a need for care or support.A review is a look at a care or support plan to see how it has been working to achieve the meeting of need.A re-assessment is something that one must have before anyone revises one’s current

What is the difference between an assessment and a review? And do social workers need to be upfront about which they’re conducting? Read More »

RP v (1) Nottingham City Council (2) Official Solicitor (2008) EWCA Civ 462

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Article 6 the right to a fair determination of one’s civil rights, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Civil Proceedings, Financial Compensation and Restitution, Duties and powers to involve others, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Human Rights in health and Social Care, Incapacity and the need for a Litigation Friend, Relevance of Mental Capacity to Care Planning, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Statutory Advocacy (Care Act, Mental Capacity Act, Mental Health Act), The involvement of the Court of Protection in care planning under various public functions /

This was an appeal against the making of care and placement orders in respect of RP’s two year old daughter. The appeal was made largely on the basis that the earlier hearing had been conducted in a manner that convened RP’s rights under article 6 of the ECHR, in particular she claimed that she had

RP v (1) Nottingham City Council (2) Official Solicitor (2008) EWCA Civ 462 Read More »

Ombudsman’s findings against the London Borough of Ealing (12 012 697)

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Article 3 freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Delay and non-commissioning, Duties and Discretions, Duties and powers to involve others, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Timeliness and the duty to meet needs - unconscionable delay, Universal duties to meet eligible unmet needs adequately and appropriately /

Ms Y was admitted to hospital in August 2011, prior to which she lived at home alone (with assistance from daily visits by home carers). After concerns were raised by one of Ms Y’s relatives and Ms Y’s psychiatrist regarding Ms Y’s failure to take her medication and her frequent admittances to A&E, a care

Ombudsman’s findings against the London Borough of Ealing (12 012 697) Read More »

Ombudsman’s findings against Essex County Council (12 004 807) and Suffolk County Council (12 013 660)

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Delay and non-commissioning, Duties and powers to involve others, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Overview of what is required by the rules on Deprivation of Liberty, under the DoL Safeguards, Procedural safeguards before meeting needs with a regime that amounts to Deprivation of Liberty, Timeliness and the duty to meet needs - unconscionable delay /

Background Ms P lived in a care home in Essex; however her care home placement was funded by Suffolk CC (the ‘SCC’) as her authority of ordinary residence (and arranged by the Norfolk and  Suffolk NHS Trust (‘NST’) as delegates of the social services obligations of Suffolk). Further, the NST employed the community psychiatric nurse

Ombudsman’s findings against Essex County Council (12 004 807) and Suffolk County Council (12 013 660) Read More »

Ombudsman’s findings against Birmingham City Council (13 002 982)

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Complaints System and the Ombudsmen, Council's Complaint Procedure LGO, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Duties and Discretions, Duties and powers to involve others, Intro to Ombudsman reports RE 'Fault' in the context of how councils run complaints internally, Meeting eligible carers' needs, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, The rights of carers, in relation to health and social care services and support, Universal duties to meet eligible unmet needs adequately and appropriately /

In January 2004, Birmingham City Council (‘the Council’) identified X as a disabled child with severe learning difficulties and Autism. As a result of this, they provided X with 10 hours a month in direct payments. However during the period between November 2006 and March 2011, the Council neglected to continue assessing X’s needs, the

Ombudsman’s findings against Birmingham City Council (13 002 982) Read More »

M v Secretary of State for Health (The Times, 25 April 2003) (QBD)

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Article 8 ECHR, Duties and powers to involve others, Respect for Private Life /

Mental health – human rights – nearest relative – incompatibility – private life M was a detainee under the Mental Health Act 1983. Under s26 MHA 1983 M’s adoptive father, P, was designated as her ‘nearest relative’. Prior to being detained, M had made allegations that she had been sexually abused by P, and she

M v Secretary of State for Health (The Times, 25 April 2003) (QBD) Read More »

M v Derbyshire County Council [2001] (Unreported) (QBD)

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement and Participation, Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Consultation, Duties and powers to involve others /

Mental health – admissions for assessment and treatment – interviews An application for an admission for treatment under section 3 Mental Health Act 1983 may follow on immediately from an application for assessment under either section 2 or section 4 of that Act. In such circumstances, it is not necessary for an approved social worker

M v Derbyshire County Council [2001] (Unreported) (QBD) Read More »