Miss M’s response to the draft report
Jump to
- Before preparing the final version of this report, we sent Miss M a draft for her comments. Miss M raised a number of issues in response to the draft report which have been addressed in a separate covering letter to her. She disagrees fundamentally with our conclusions but, although we have made some minor changes to our report as a result of her response, our findings have not changed.
- Amongst the main issues she raised were that there was strong evidence that her mother was suffering from a relapse of her severe depressive illness at the time of her admission to the Care Home, and that the complex physical and mental health problems she presented with in October 2004 were identical to those presented at earlier admissions to psychiatric hospital between 2001 and 2003. In paragraphs 126 and 127, we acknowledge that Mrs M continued to suffer symptoms of mental illness before and after her admission to the Care Home. We have, however, concluded that because of her increased physical disability, Mrs M required full-time support for her daily living needs, which was provided at the Care Home. The circumstances of her placement there do not seem to us to warrant a definite recommendation that the Care Home costs should now be funded retrospectively under section 117 of the Act.
- Miss M has also reiterated her belief that her mother’s admission to the Care Home took place because there were no hospital beds available. As we have explained in paragraph 125, the records do not indicate that a hospital placement was considered appropriate at that time. She also said that at no other time when her mother suffered a relapse of her mental illness was she ‘abandoned’ as she was, and asks why the CMHT abruptly withdrew treatment following her mother’s admission to the Care Home. While we have made it clear in paragraph 128 that the process of Mrs M’s discharge from CMHT did not accord with the prescribed procedures and guidance, we remain of the view, as set out in paragraph 129, that we do not consider that that caused an injustice to Mrs M or her family, because she received full-time support for her daily living needs in the Care Home.
- Miss M has also suggested that our decision in her case, about liability for section 117 aftercare payments, is not in line with previous cases considered by the Local Government Ombudsman. We have explained to her that we do not consider that her own complaint is exactly similar, in relevant aspects, to previous complaints that we have considered; nor that we are contradicting previous guidance or conclusions reached by the Ombudsmen here.
