Ombudsman tells council to pay £60k+ to man caring for his wife

The Local Government Ombudsman has called on a council to pay more than £60,000 after it failed to offer effective support for a man providing 24-hour care for his wife.

The LGO said its investigation into Shropshire Council’s conduct “throws into the spotlight the issue of blurred boundaries between formal and informal care – often provided by a family member – and how the needs of the carer can be overlooked”.

According to the report from the Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, there was strong evidence that the complainant’s wife required 24-hour attention for her complex mental health problems. Her husband was mostly providing this care.

Between March 2008 and April 2010 Shropshire provided direct payments to the wife to employ her husband for 50 hours per week.

The LGO’s investigation revealed that Shropshire did not carry out a formal assessment of the needs of the wife.

The care package was based on how the husband could be assisted to work full-time and care for his wife. This produced an ad hoc method of establishing how to meet her needs, the Ombudsman said.

The husband claimed he lost his job, pension contributions and career prospects as a result of the inaction of the council.

The LGO recommended that Shropshire:

• Pay the complainant of £61,270 in recognition of the care he provided which was not funded by the council at the appropriate time;
• Provide an apology to the couple about the time that it took to deal with the complaint;
• Review its procedure for complaints handling in light of comments made in the report; and
• Pay a further £1,000 for the time and trouble in making the complaint.

Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “It is common for family members to provide or contribute towards the social care of loved ones, but the needs of the carer themselves are more easily overlooked, and this is something I am concerned that councils can over-rely on.

“If local authorities carry out their obligations properly as assessors and commissioners of social care needs, then these instances can be avoided. In the Shropshire case, the needs of the husband as a carer should have been assessed separately – it wasn’t until he raised the fact himself that he couldn’t possibly work 50 hours a week whilst providing round-the-clock support for his wife without a break, that they were actually considered.”

Stephen Chandler, Shropshire Council’s director of adult social care, said: “This was a complex case and we worked with the family for a long time to ensure that the care and support was appropriate to their needs. Procedures are in place to provide support to carers, and it should be made clear that financial support was put in place by the council for the family to pay for care as they saw fit.”

Chandler added: “This particular case is now pending a formal decision by the council and we are currently considering our response to the Ombudsman’s report.”