Summary
Ms C complained about the council's handling of her complaint to a social work complaints review committee (CRC).
Ms C was in receipt of direct payments for six hours per week of respite care in regards to the care of her daughter. Outside of these hours, Ms C was the sole carer for her daughter. Ms C was advised by her doctor to undergo surgery which would require several weeks of recuperation in hospital. Ms C requested that throughout this period the council increase her direct payments in order for her to pay her mother to look after her daughter during the surgery and recuperation time. The council refused this request, explaining that they did not consider the circumstances merited the payment of a family member. Ms C complained about this and took her complaints to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC did not uphold Ms C's complaints.
Ms C complained to us that there was an unreasonable delay in arranging the CRC, that there were inaccuracies in the council's submissions to the CRC, that the CRC unreasonably refused to consider certain evidence and that the minute of the CRC hearing unreasonably failed to mention this.
We found that there were unreasonable delays in the council arranging the CRC hearing and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. We found that the council had since offered an apology for these delays, and we therefore made no recommendations. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's complaints about the council's submission to the CRC, the CRC's consideration of evidence or the minute of the CRC hearing. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201604301 as a PDF (11.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018