Council ordered to pay £86k legal bill in dementia case

Milton Keynes Council, whose social services department was censured by a judge for the “woefully inadequate” way it dealt with an elderly former magistrate with severe dementia, has been ordered to pay a legal bill of more than £80,000.

Earlier this year, District Judge Paul Mort criticised the local authority following a hearing in the Court of Protection – where cases involving vulnerable and sick people are analysed – in London.

The judge said the council’s failure to investigate after concerns were raised about the safety of the woman, who is in her 80s, was “deplorable” – and made a similar criticism of a decision to move the pensioner from her home to a care home without seeking court approval.

He said the council had agreed to apologise to the pensioner – and her son – for its “failings”.

The woman’s son subsequently argued that the council should pay his £86,000 legal bill – saying all costs he had run up in Court of Protection litigation were a “direct consequence” of the council’s “actions and omissions”.

Council bosses said they should foot some of the son’s bill.

But Judge Mort has now ruled in the son’s favour.

He said in a judgment, published on a legal website, that the council had set a “juggernaut in motion” when it initially failed to investigate – and concluded that an “award of costs” was “manifestly justified”.

The judge did not identify the woman but named Milton Keynes Council as the local authority with responsibility for her welfare.

Judge Mort had initially criticised the council following a hearing in April.

He said the woman had been born in Oakham, Rutland, and had worked in market research and been a magistrate. In recent years she had been cared for in her home by her son.

The judge said in late 2012 the manager of a day care centre the pensioner attended had raised concerns about bruises and scratches on her face and legs.

He said the council had moved the woman from her home to a care home – but its safeguarding team had not investigated concerns raised.

And he said the woman’s son had not been told where she was until nearly three weeks later.

The judge also said the council had not gained authorisation when the woman was moved.

Judge Mort said the council had made allegations of neglect against the woman’s son. He had denied the allegations and the council had decided not to pursue them. Police were also told of concerns about the pensioner but had decided not to take any action.

Council bosses had subsequently decided not to fund the woman’s care “in the community” and had concluded that a care home was the best place for her, said the judge. The woman’s son had felt that he had “little choice other than to give his consent” to that decision.

The judge concluded that the woman had been “unlawfully deprived of her” liberty when removed from her home by the council – and that her human right to family life had been breached.

He said the council had reviewed “safeguarding practices” – but that move had “come too late” for the pensioner.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2014, All Rights Reserved.