Islington Council has been told to apologise for causing distress to the family of an elderly woman with dementia after record-keeping failures.
By Josef Steen, Local Democracy Reporter
Islington Council has been told to apologise for causing distress to the family of an elderly woman with dementia after record-keeping failures.
The older woman, named only as Mrs C, had physical disabilities and was admitted to hospital in April 2024 after falling out of her wheelchair and breaking her hip, requiring surgery. When she was ready to be discharged, clinical and care staff decided she needed full bed-based care.
But her family, who cared for her, eventually complained to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) amid a dispute over the cost of care.
Though the LGSCO dismissed some complaints the family had levelled at the council, the watchdog rebuked the council for a string of administrative errors, including issuing an incorrect invoice for care which did not reflect cancelled carer visits.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found the council had kept poor records during Mrs C’s discharge from hospital and failed in its statutory obligation to provide her family with a written copy of its needs assessment. These mistakes ultimately made decisions around her care “more difficult and stressful for the family”.
However, the probe also concluded some of the blame lay with the family for their financial confusion.
Mrs C’s adult children mistakenly believed their mother, who they cared for, was entitled to up to six weeks of free support, or ‘reablement’, and claimed they were “informally” promised this at the hospital.
The elderly woman’s son, Mr B, also did not disclose to the Islington Council how much capital his mother had, which mean the council treated her by default as a self-funder and charged her the full amount for her support.
In England, if a person has over £23,250 in savings and assets (capital) they must pay for their own care.
Soon after they received a bill, the family rang the council to argue that they did not know they would be charged the full amount. They withheld payment and asked for the care package to be stopped.
But the watchdog made clear that a physiotherapist and a social worker had both told the family that reablement was not on offer, and a booklet sent to the family explained that failing to disclose her capital would lead the council to assume Mrs C could afford the entire cost of care.
The family members also complained that they had received their bill after much delay, but the Ombudsman said this was their fault for taking three months to return the necessary financial forms.
However, the Ombudsman pointed out that paying off the large debt they had accrued could drain Mrs C’s finances and drop her below the threshold. The watchdog ordered the council to offer a new financial assessment to see if she was eligible for funding, as well as a repayment plan.
The Ombudsman also instructed the council to carry out a mental capacity assessment to find out if Mrs C was able to make decisions about ending her care, and hold a “best interest” meeting with the family and professionals about this.
The report concluded that Islington should apologise to Mr B for its faults, and provide an updated invoice for the outstanding debt, as well as make service improvements around record-keeping and sharing care plans.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service contacted Islington Council for comment.
