The following actual cases illustrate how the needs of individuals are not being identified as the Care Act says they should be, and how councils are not respecting individuals or their advocates as the best judge of their own wellbeing as the Act says they should.
Image: Bruno Brown
The case of Christine shows not only how councils make themselves vulnerable to nefarious interests completely at odds with the service user’s best interests, but are willing to waste large amounts of public money to satisfy those interests.
Read Christine's full story...
This case shows that professional knowledge, expertise and seniority is no guarantee of a good experience of the system.
It is also another example of how councils see ‘wellbeing’ through the lens of resources, not the lived experience of need and not as the Care Act requires need to be seen without regard to the availability of resources.
Read HR's full story...
Albert & May
This case illustrates how councils ignore the Care Act’s requirement to assume the individual, along with family carers, are the best judges of their own wellbeing.
With decisions about needs and support plans causally taken by managers to whom the individual has no access, and completely disregarding the family’s own views, it makes the policy intention to make assessments ‘co-produced’ nonsense.
Read Albert and May's full story...
Navya's case illustrates how, if a council makes or plans to make, an arbitrary cut to support that has no regard to wellbeing, it can be successfully overturned when a council is confronted with the unlawfulness of its decisions.
Whilst Navya had the support of a legal advocate, this is not necessarily required.
Read Navya's full story...
This case shows how a council recognises ‘eligible’ needs only in order to reduce costs. It denies a need for wellbeing by reducing it to being just a ‘want’ whilst proposing a ‘solution’ to the ‘want’ that is wholly inappropriate.
Read Dorothée's full story...
This case shows the perversity of decision making the eligibility process engenders. It shows how the blindered focus on ‘eligibility’ leads to the social worker failing to see preventive and progressive opportunities that will both promote wellbeing and reduce demand.
It’s a case that graphically illustrates the findings of the Ipsos Mori research in 2017
Read Bill's full story...
This case illustrates two things. The first is how needs which should be recognised under the Care Act, but for which there isn’t the resource, are dismissed as being mere ‘wants’ or ‘wishes’ for which the State has no responsibility.
The second is that no-one less than the Secretary of State for Health, and the Joint Committee for Health and Care, accepts this failure to implement the Act
Read the full story...
L D v Oxfordshire County Council
The case confirmed the Campaign’s understanding that the Care Act requires assessments of need for care and support to be wider than eligibility. However, it also confirmed how flimsy a pretence a council requires that it has done so when there is serious doubt that it has.
The Court accepted the council’s case despite having clear reasons to reject it. The judgement explained that, given the cost implications, it is not for the judiciary to determine the level of need met. It is properly a political responsibility. This means the judiciary is not going to be the route for change.
Read the full story...