Council’s £73k payout to settle long-running care

COMMITTEE TOLD OF DISPUTE OVER LOST EARNINGS

Sunderland City Council (SCC) have paid out nearly £73,000 to settle a longrunning dispute over care payments, a committee has heard.

SCC’s latest “complaints and compliments” report includes data on council write-offs and refunds during 2017/18.

On June 28, SCC’s Scrutiny and Co-ordinating Committee heard the sum was linked to a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) decision in January this year. The financial remedy was linked to a complaint referred to the LGSCO in 2013 over suspended direct payments between 2012-2014.

The case involved an elderly woman with Alzheimer’s disease, “Mrs C”, and her son,who supported her care –“Mr B”, a report states.

It adds the complainant “Mr B” claimed the halted payments led to lost earnings as he was unable to return to work due to care responsibilities.

Although SCC agreed to pay a “financial remedy” in 2014 on LGSCO recommendations that there was an “injustice”, a resolution was delayed for several years.

This was linked to separate legal proceedings to appoint an independent social worker for “Mrs C” and assess her son”s “needs as a carer”.

Coun Darryl Dixon, speaking at Sunderland Civic Centre, raised concerns about the “significant” sum, noting it was the highest SCC had paid out since 2012/13.

But SCC”s complaints manager Marie Johnston told councillors the case was “long and complex”.

She added that the council’sfinalpayoutwasamixture of “straight reimbursement andcompensation”andasked for copies of the report to be circulated to councillors for more information.

A LGSCO report states delays in the case were linked to separate legal proceedings to appoint an independent social worker for “Mrs C” and assess her son’s “needs as a carer”.

The ombudsman made a final recommendation this year stating it would be “disproportionate to expect SCC to pay a remedy to “Mr B” based on the higher budget it has now agreed.”

It also disputed council claims that Mr B had been “unco-operative”.

SCC were asked to refund about £27,987.40 for the time when no direct payments were made based on their rate in 2014.

The sum of £40,000 was also paid to “Mr B” for “loss of opportunity” and an additional £5,000 for “distress”.