KCC blasted in report for failing homeless teenage boy

In a separate report, KCC comes under fire for overcharging a blind woman for care

Social care chiefs at County Hall have come under fire in two damning reports which expose failings resulting in a blind woman being overcharged for care and a homeless boy left to fend for himself.

Both reports were issued by the Local Government Ombudsman, detailing failings by Kent County Council.

One related to a visually impaired woman in her 90s being overcharged for care, an error which has prompted a review within KCC after the ombudsman said others will have been incorrectly charged in the same way.

In that instance, cash-strapped KCC will have to refund all those affected.

The ombudsman’s probe was launched following a complaint from the son of the elderly woman, who had suffered a broken pelvis and needed care so she could recover at home.

He submitted the complaint on the grounds the council had charged for care services before carrying out a financial assessment or telling his mother what it would cost.

KCC was operating a “provisional charging” policy at the time in which customers would be charged £39 a week for their care.

The council charged her a provisional bill of £380, despite the financial assessment not being carried out until the following month.

The ombudsman said KCC failed to comply with statutory government guidance. The £380 fee was waived and £200 compensation granted.

KCC is no longer running the provisional policy and is now undertaking a review into other cases where clients may have been wrongly charged under the system.

Executive director for investigations at the LGO, Nigel Ellis, said: “Government policy is clear on the matter of provisional charging for care services – it explicitly states that no charge should be applied before the user has been told about the assessment of those charges.”

KCC cabinet member for adult services and public health, Graham Gibbens, said KCC had accepted the findings of the LGO report and had apologised for the poor communication with the woman about her care package.

“We introduced the provisional charging policy for home care services in good faith. We believe the government guidance about care charging is unclear,” he said.

“However, we have now withdrawn provisional charging in response to recommendations by the LGO and have agreed to refund all those affected between April 2011 and December 2012 by this policy.”

The damning report was not the only fire the council had to fight this week.

Another, this time involving a 16-year-old homeless boy, saw red-faced children’s services chiefs exposed for their failings in supporting the vulnerable teenager.

The ombudsmen found the council had failed to provide proper support to the boy, who became homeless in February 2011 when his parents left the family home without making arrangements for his care.

While he was offered alternative foster accommodation, he did not feel able to accept and therefore continued to ‘sofa surf’ with friends and relatives.

The ombudsman’s investigation found the council did not properly assess whether the boy should be a ‘looked-after’ child under its care and did not explain to him the benefits of being one.

As a looked-after child, the teen would have been entitled to services including an allocated social worker.

LGO’s Mr Ellis said: “Because of the fault of the council, this vulnerable person was denied access to key welfare services that he was entitled to and that the council has a duty to provide.

“I believe that if he was given the right information about the benefits of being under the council’s care, the complainant would have accepted them.”

The teenager was given £3,000 compensation for the injustice caused to him.

KCC cabinet member for specialist children’s services, Jenny Whittle, said: “He has been allocated a social worker and, prior to the LGO report, we have already written to the housing authority to confirm that he should be treated as a care leaver and given the help and benefits of a child in care.

“While we feel the report does not fully reflect the complexities of the case, we do accept that he should have been designated a child in care.

“We did repeatedly offer him foster care, which he refused, and gave him financial help but we accept that we failed to offer him a wider range of accommodation.”

People who believe they are affected by the “provisional policy” charges call 0300 333 6249.