If you have ONLY involved the Monitoring Officer, the problem will either have been solved, or you will have been properly answered as to why it’s not unlawful in the MO’s view. Or you will have been fobbed off with an excuse for not engaging with you any further. If you’re asking whether you can […]
One can do this, in theory, but the more levels of scrutiny a decision has been through the less likely it is that a mistake or error of such legal significance as to constitute good grounds for a judicial review, will still exist. Taking the CHC issue as an example, rather than the Care Act:
We do. We think that Care Act Advocates should use this route for their advocates’ reports when concerned about the rights of the client. We think that it’s free-standing and clearly intended for a different range of issues than the complaints system. The complaints system was introduced well after the Monitoring Officer route and would
Given the existence of ombudsmen (outside the Health Service) is there any need for more ADR? A criticism already made of Ombudsmen schemes in general (eg. by SHELTER) is that the remit of the Ombudsman does not address the need of the individual to “have things put right“. The time taken constitutes a major problem,
When acting under statutory powers or duties, a decision-maker must now think as follows: Am I reading the relevant legislation which empowers me to do what I am planning in the first place, and giving effect to it, in a way that is compatible with Convention rights, as far as it possible to do so,
s.40 Care Act provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between local authorities regarding ordinary residence. Where there is uncertainty, LAs “should always consider each case on its own merits” (Care Act Guidance 19.13 based on public law principles) Disputes over OR MUST not delay the provision of care and support. LAs should meet needs first