Financial redress is sometimes recommended by the LGO when a person has suffered harm – as compensation for maladministration, rather than damages. Generally speaking, poor social work does not sound in damages, but just recently, a remedy which is well known in the context of CHC status (NHS repayment of self funders’ fees for periods of care when the CCG should have been paying) has emerged as a remedy within the Care Act context too. It’s called Restitution.

Restitution is based on unjust enrichment on the part of the council in not having had to spend the money that the law required it to allocate. (see CP v NE Lincs, 2019, Court of Appeal, on this site).

These cases generally involve people who have been left without care, or paying privately for care that they should have been receiving from the Council and yet haven’t been getting that, because of some indefensible bit of illegality regarding process or substantive thinking, by the council, over a long period of time. Where an incapacitated person incurs a liability to someone else, THAT debt has to be seen as the measure of the reimbursement. It can also arise in cases where the Council was at fault for removing care, setting arbitrary limits to funding, and delays amongst other things. 

BradfordCity of Bradford Metropolitan District Council to pay £60,000 in restitution for failing to provide care or support for over 5 years, despite agreeing a support plan17 016 346
NorfolkNorfolk County Council found at fault for failing to meet assessed eligible needs with a care plan that stepped up once a carer (both paid and unpaid) had refused to do any more – and now making restitution for that wrongdoing19 002 258
CalderdaleCalderdale Council at fault for poor communication, failing to involve a person in decisions surrounding their care, wrongly stopping direct payments and severe delays in carrying out an assessment19 004 821
CalderdaleCalderdale Metropolitan Borough Council at fault for arbitrary top up policies, for instructing service users to enter into top up agreement contracts with care homes directly, for failing to identify a suitable care home and for failing to undertake a needs assessment19 019 079
Cheshire West & ChesterCheshire West and Cheshire Council at fault for stopping direct payments without explanation and applying an arbitrary DRE disregard18 010 441
Hammersmith & FulhamLondon Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham found at fault for delays in completing a sensory assessment and in implementing reablement support18 019 465
GloucestershireGloucestershire County Council at fault for discontinuing support and for delaying reassessment19 005 899
Sheffield Sheffield City Council and the CCG jointly at fault for delays in needs assessments and for failing to properly communicate and coordinate to reduce the impact of the lack of co-operation17 019 772
StaffordshireStaffordshire County Council at fault for delay in reassessment and not meeting an assessed eligible need19 011 306
NottinghamshireNottinghamshire at fault, for reducing a man’s care package because of financial pressures and leaving parents to pay18 015 558
ThurrockThurrock Council at fault for failing to include DRE in financial assessments18 019 831
LambethLambeth Council and the CCG at fault for delays in needs assessments and handling of a restitution claim17 005 393
West SussexWest Sussex Council at fault for inadequate reassessments, poor record keeping, and incorrect back payments18 014 895
Bath & North East SomersetBath and North Somerset Council at fault for failing to address the shortfall in a personal budget19 000 003
MertonLondon Borough of Merton Council delay in finding suitable placement was inexcusable18 011 437
DorsetDorset County Council at fault for unreasonable delays in funding Direct Payments18 012 800
KirkleesKirklees Council at fault for removing respite care and setting arbitrary limit to funding19 008 980
PlymouthPlymouth Council at fault for miscommunication over safeguarding measures18 017 093
South TynesideSouth Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council at fault for failing to follow assessment guidelines in regards to deafblind clients, failing to backdate direct payments, and failing to investigate restriction of contact imposed by its commissioned care provider15 016 702
East Sussex CountyEast Sussex County Council at fault for making a person pay a top-up for s.117 aftercare being provided at home12 011 082
WirralWirral Council at fault for failing to complete a timely assessment of care needs, when a person arrived from another council’s area, resulting in a direct loss and breach of the Continuity provisions in ss37-38 of the Care Act22 005 781
YorkYork Council at fault for delays in reviewing a care package after Covid-19, poor record keeping about transport provision, and failing to offer a carer’s assessment22 000 366
East SussexEast Sussex County Council found at fault for not following COVID Guidance and not acting flexibly during the pandemic causing a delay with setting up a direct payment to make up for non-provision21 015 871
LeicesterLeicester found at fault for refusing to transfer appointeeship to a relative 21 004 153
CambridgeshireCambridgeshire at fault for a 20-month, ongoing delay in providing a needs assessment, and for failing to implement agreed complaint remedies21 017 827
LancashireLancashire County Council at fault for failing to secure the planned respite care and over communications about potential supported living settings22 010 039
West SussexWest Sussex County Council at fault for failing to consider new evidence as part of an appeal for a disability related expenditure disregard22 011 273
Scroll to Top