Bournemouth council slammed by Ombudsman over care for disabled Tarik (From Bournemouth Echo)

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

step up wrote:
Bournemouth Borough Tory Council take the 'Nasty Party' label to a whole new level. Targeting the likes of Tarik. Appaling. Who are the officers responsible? That question should be asked. Maladministration, service failure and Injustice....anyone losing their well paid job???

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

step up wrote:
Bournemouth Borough Tory Council take the 'Nasty Party' label to a whole new level. Targeting the likes of Tarik. Appaling. Who are the officers responsible? That question should be asked. Maladministration, service failure and Injustice....anyone losing their well paid job???

scrumpyjack wrote:
I wonder if this is included in the £1 in every £3 collected in tax that goes to the Welfare (benefits) bill or whether this NHS cost is on top.

it truly makes you wonder how we can afford all the other stuff we have to pay for.

When you hear numbers like that the mind does boggle.

Victor_Meldrew_Lives
! wrote:

step up wrote:
Bournemouth Borough Tory Council take the 'Nasty Party' label to a whole new level. Targeting the likes of Tarik. Appaling. Who are the officers responsible? That question should be asked. Maladministration, service failure and Injustice....anyone losing their well paid job???

This is decided by council employees and is NOTHING to do with the conservative party.

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

Arjay wrote:

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

While I'm sure it is a highly commendable aspiration to fund the care needs of the severely disabled, so that everyone gets a customised 'Rolls Royce' package that best suits their individual needs, that's not going to be possible with limited resources.

As Mrs' Zavadil says, she fights for her son, and won't take any nonsense. Naturally. Good for her.
But because the 'she who shouts loudest' approach has worked for her, someone else will lose out, simply because the pot of money available is limited.
Individual care packages may be desirable.
Quality communal care packages, as suggested by 'Old before my time', are going to be fairer, with todays' limited funding.....

Old before my time wrote:

Arjay wrote:

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

While I'm sure it is a highly commendable aspiration to fund the care needs of the severely disabled, so that everyone gets a customised 'Rolls Royce' package that best suits their individual needs, that's not going to be possible with limited resources.

As Mrs' Zavadil says, she fights for her son, and won't take any nonsense. Naturally. Good for her.
But because the 'she who shouts loudest' approach has worked for her, someone else will lose out, simply because the pot of money available is limited.
Individual care packages may be desirable.
Quality communal care packages, as suggested by 'Old before my time', are going to be fairer, with todays' limited funding.....

Here here! Very well said.

Arjay wrote:

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

While I'm sure it is a highly commendable aspiration to fund the care needs of the severely disabled, so that everyone gets a customised 'Rolls Royce' package that best suits their individual needs, that's not going to be possible with limited resources.

As Mrs' Zavadil says, she fights for her son, and won't take any nonsense. Naturally. Good for her.
But because the 'she who shouts loudest' approach has worked for her, someone else will lose out, simply because the pot of money available is limited.
Individual care packages may be desirable.
Quality communal care packages, as suggested by 'Old before my time', are going to be fairer, with todays' limited funding.....

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

Old Colonial wrote:
"Jane Portman, the council’s executive director for adults and children, said: “The Council accepts the findings of the report and is putting into action the recommendations made."

Now do the honourable thing...and resign!

step up wrote:

Old before my time wrote:

Arjay wrote:

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

While I'm sure it is a highly commendable aspiration to fund the care needs of the severely disabled, so that everyone gets a customised 'Rolls Royce' package that best suits their individual needs, that's not going to be possible with limited resources.

As Mrs' Zavadil says, she fights for her son, and won't take any nonsense. Naturally. Good for her.
But because the 'she who shouts loudest' approach has worked for her, someone else will lose out, simply because the pot of money available is limited.
Individual care packages may be desirable.
Quality communal care packages, as suggested by 'Old before my time', are going to be fairer, with todays' limited funding.....

Here here! Very well said.

On the contrary. By standing up for the rights of her son Mrs Zavadil has blazed the trail for others. They will not 'miss out' but will be able to say I want what Tarik ( and many others ) have....care under the Direct Payments Scheme. The ignorance here amazes me. It is NOT CHEAPER in residential care!!! The scandal involving Winterbourne home where abuse took place, was charging £3000/40000 a week for each resident from council funds. Direct Payments are cheaper and provide quality of care. Why are some posts advocating inferior care for more cost to bolster the private bank accounts of 'Providers' who usually live in Sandbanks. Please make an effort to undetstand how it works!!!

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:

Old before my time wrote:

Arjay wrote:

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

While I'm sure it is a highly commendable aspiration to fund the care needs of the severely disabled, so that everyone gets a customised 'Rolls Royce' package that best suits their individual needs, that's not going to be possible with limited resources.

As Mrs' Zavadil says, she fights for her son, and won't take any nonsense. Naturally. Good for her.
But because the 'she who shouts loudest' approach has worked for her, someone else will lose out, simply because the pot of money available is limited.
Individual care packages may be desirable.
Quality communal care packages, as suggested by 'Old before my time', are going to be fairer, with todays' limited funding.....

Here here! Very well said.

On the contrary. By standing up for the rights of her son Mrs Zavadil has blazed the trail for others. They will not 'miss out' but will be able to say I want what Tarik ( and many others ) have....care under the Direct Payments Scheme. The ignorance here amazes me. It is NOT CHEAPER in residential care!!! The scandal involving Winterbourne home where abuse took place, was charging £3000/40000 a week for each resident from council funds. Direct Payments are cheaper and provide quality of care. Why are some posts advocating inferior care for more cost to bolster the private bank accounts of 'Providers' who usually live in Sandbanks. Please make an effort to undetstand how it works!!!

There were presumably quite a range of options at Winterbourne, if the package prices varied between £3000 and £40,000 per week!
I'm guessing you've added an extra zero, by mistake?

Not an uncommon occurrence, with those who simply don't understand - or acknowledge - the concept of limited funding from the public purse....

step up wrote:
Might also add that it is the council who has been found at fault here! Maladministration, service failure and Injustice! Do you think a 70% cut is a reasonable position? LGO doesnt. Good stance 70% cut? Not 7% or 17% look reasonable to you?? And how much do you think fighting that insane position cost the public purse over 19 months?? With barristers on £980 an hour...Well done Social Service at Bournemouth Borough Council ...70% ??? Brilliant! That was never gona cause a row was it...

step up wrote:

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:

Old before my time wrote:

Arjay wrote:

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

While I'm sure it is a highly commendable aspiration to fund the care needs of the severely disabled, so that everyone gets a customised 'Rolls Royce' package that best suits their individual needs, that's not going to be possible with limited resources.

As Mrs' Zavadil says, she fights for her son, and won't take any nonsense. Naturally. Good for her.
But because the 'she who shouts loudest' approach has worked for her, someone else will lose out, simply because the pot of money available is limited.
Individual care packages may be desirable.
Quality communal care packages, as suggested by 'Old before my time', are going to be fairer, with todays' limited funding.....

Here here! Very well said.

On the contrary. By standing up for the rights of her son Mrs Zavadil has blazed the trail for others. They will not 'miss out' but will be able to say I want what Tarik ( and many others ) have....care under the Direct Payments Scheme. The ignorance here amazes me. It is NOT CHEAPER in residential care!!! The scandal involving Winterbourne home where abuse took place, was charging £3000/40000 a week for each resident from council funds. Direct Payments are cheaper and provide quality of care. Why are some posts advocating inferior care for more cost to bolster the private bank accounts of 'Providers' who usually live in Sandbanks. Please make an effort to undetstand how it works!!!

There were presumably quite a range of options at Winterbourne, if the package prices varied between £3000 and £40,000 per week!
I'm guessing you've added an extra zero, by mistake?

Not an uncommon occurrence, with those who simply don't understand - or acknowledge - the concept of limited funding from the public purse....

Yes it was a mistake. I do understand the concept of limited funding from the public purse and dont need a lesson from you. If you research care packages across the country you will find many far in excess of that for Tariks staff. I suggest you direct your limits on the public purse to the waste and extravagance of the overpaid officials and councillors before targeting the blind mute and epileptic for 70% cuts. Hope you and yours, obviously not in need at the moment, never have and accident or desease that reders them as vulnerable as Tarik

scrumpyjack wrote:
I'm sorry when you say "It does not matter if funding is limited." does that mean we can just spend what we don't have?

We can just make the whole system collapse irrespective of any future consequence?

interesting.

step up wrote:

Old Colonial wrote:
"Jane Portman, the council’s executive director for adults and children, said: “The Council accepts the findings of the report and is putting into action the recommendations made."

Now do the honourable thing...and resign!

This attack on Tariks funding was under Charon, Donellan, Geddes and Nadine Evans. Only Evans remains and should go. Look at previous cases in Echo regarding her. Autistic man pleading to attend his loved day centre. Brutal regime under this group.

muscliffman wrote:
s-pb 2 you say

"If you want someone to blame I suggest central government for cutting funds to local councils, and local government for not allocating enough funds to social services especially when the numbers needing help are rising dramatically, and also for freezing the council tax charge"

So Town Hall local decisions to blow £millions in Bournemouth on failed and questionable seafront projects and pay (and preserve) their own bloated salaries and pensions has nothing to do with the need to cut public care services now?

By basic sums, I think it does.

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:

Old before my time wrote:

Arjay wrote:

Old before my time wrote:
If I could "opt out" of certain items which my tax got spent on, this would be one of them.

I appreciate it's a sensitive issue but to me it represents an absolute waste of money. Why not build a specialist centre where people with such disablities can be cared for around the clock by a consolidated team of experts rather than having a team in each person's house. Madness.

While I'm sure it is a highly commendable aspiration to fund the care needs of the severely disabled, so that everyone gets a customised 'Rolls Royce' package that best suits their individual needs, that's not going to be possible with limited resources.

As Mrs' Zavadil says, she fights for her son, and won't take any nonsense. Naturally. Good for her.
But because the 'she who shouts loudest' approach has worked for her, someone else will lose out, simply because the pot of money available is limited.
Individual care packages may be desirable.
Quality communal care packages, as suggested by 'Old before my time', are going to be fairer, with todays' limited funding.....

Here here! Very well said.

On the contrary. By standing up for the rights of her son Mrs Zavadil has blazed the trail for others. They will not 'miss out' but will be able to say I want what Tarik ( and many others ) have....care under the Direct Payments Scheme. The ignorance here amazes me. It is NOT CHEAPER in residential care!!! The scandal involving Winterbourne home where abuse took place, was charging £3000/40000 a week for each resident from council funds. Direct Payments are cheaper and provide quality of care. Why are some posts advocating inferior care for more cost to bolster the private bank accounts of 'Providers' who usually live in Sandbanks. Please make an effort to undetstand how it works!!!

There were presumably quite a range of options at Winterbourne, if the package prices varied between £3000 and £40,000 per week!
I'm guessing you've added an extra zero, by mistake?

Not an uncommon occurrence, with those who simply don't understand - or acknowledge - the concept of limited funding from the public purse....

Yes it was a mistake. I do understand the concept of limited funding from the public purse and dont need a lesson from you. If you research care packages across the country you will find many far in excess of that for Tariks staff. I suggest you direct your limits on the public purse to the waste and extravagance of the overpaid officials and councillors before targeting the blind mute and epileptic for 70% cuts. Hope you and yours, obviously not in need at the moment, never have and accident or desease that reders them as vulnerable as Tarik

You've clearly had nothing to do with the detail of the recent decisions to return disabled people from safe, well staffed, communal environments - like Douglas House, for example - back into individual properties in the 'mainstream' community - whether that was best for them or not!
This resulted in the loss of some excellent staff, and indeed the breakup of some valuable teams of carers, and the introduction of hugely varying standards of care, with expensive 'individual' packages for these often seriously disabled folk.

The cost and 'benefits' are clearly not sustainable in the longer term, and I can see the policy being reversed sooner, rather than later.
Huge mistake.

And I certainly don't need any lessons about public finance from someone who can't be bothered to count the 'zeros' on a main point of their costing example!

Arjay wrote:
You are of course entitled to your opinion. As am I.
Time will tell......

step up wrote:
Shone not shown before you crucify me again!!

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:
Shone not shown before you crucify me again!!

It's also 'appalling' and 'emanating' as well, but I know how sensitive you are about any criticism of your typos, so I won't mention those.....

I can see that your heart is in the right place, but the reality of running individual 'care' packages with an ever changing supply of almost minimum wage agency staff, does not make for the rosy picture you are trying to paint.
Not everyone has a caring mother, as Tarik does, to oversee their care on a day to day basis.
I suspect it won't be long before the first horror stories of exploitation of some vulnerable people, who are nominally 'in charge' of their own care funding, start to emerge.
As I say, time will tell...

step up wrote:

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:
Shone not shown before you crucify me again!!

It's also 'appalling' and 'emanating' as well, but I know how sensitive you are about any criticism of your typos, so I won't mention those.....

I can see that your heart is in the right place, but the reality of running individual 'care' packages with an ever changing supply of almost minimum wage agency staff, does not make for the rosy picture you are trying to paint.
Not everyone has a caring mother, as Tarik does, to oversee their care on a day to day basis.
I suspect it won't be long before the first horror stories of exploitation of some vulnerable people, who are nominally 'in charge' of their own care funding, start to emerge.
As I say, time will tell...

I stand corrected! My understanding is it was precisely to avoid low paid ever changing agency staff that Mrs Zavadil refused to accept the 'live in carer rate' that would have provided just that, replacing his trained, trusted and much loved team who are extended family have many years caring for him. £37,000 cannot employ 4-5 staff annually 24-7 but 'providers' will supply low paid low grade staff for that. You may accept this level of skill to walk the dog but totally inadequate for someone with profound Critical care needs. Since we both want the best care for the most vulnerable we should agree to disagree and one size fits all will never be the case for complex care needs. Direct Payments do require commitment to deliver and the service user, family member or advocate must expect to have all responsibility of employer. But support is there and if done properly I believe delivers a bespoke care regime that enhances the lives of the disabled and not the private landlords of care homes.

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:

Arjay wrote:

step up wrote:
Shone not shown before you crucify me again!!

It's also 'appalling' and 'emanating' as well, but I know how sensitive you are about any criticism of your typos, so I won't mention those.....

I can see that your heart is in the right place, but the reality of running individual 'care' packages with an ever changing supply of almost minimum wage agency staff, does not make for the rosy picture you are trying to paint.
Not everyone has a caring mother, as Tarik does, to oversee their care on a day to day basis.
I suspect it won't be long before the first horror stories of exploitation of some vulnerable people, who are nominally 'in charge' of their own care funding, start to emerge.
As I say, time will tell...

I stand corrected! My understanding is it was precisely to avoid low paid ever changing agency staff that Mrs Zavadil refused to accept the 'live in carer rate' that would have provided just that, replacing his trained, trusted and much loved team who are extended family have many years caring for him. £37,000 cannot employ 4-5 staff annually 24-7 but 'providers' will supply low paid low grade staff for that. You may accept this level of skill to walk the dog but totally inadequate for someone with profound Critical care needs. Since we both want the best care for the most vulnerable we should agree to disagree and one size fits all will never be the case for complex care needs. Direct Payments do require commitment to deliver and the service user, family member or advocate must expect to have all responsibility of employer. But support is there and if done properly I believe delivers a bespoke care regime that enhances the lives of the disabled and not the private landlords of care homes.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one can only have admiration for Mrs. Zavadil's dogged determination to get the best care for Tarik.
As I also mentioned, there simply isn't enough money for 'trained, trusted and much loved teams' for everyone who needs them, on an individual basis.
So the 'he (or she) who shouts loudest' approach often wins the day, at the expense of others, where funds (and resources) are limited.
The break up of some of the really good communal caring teams locally, by this forced introduction of individual 'care in the community' packages has been very sad.
There simply isn't enough good, trained folk to replace them, on the one to one basis now required.

For Tarik, the outcome has been positive (albeit after an expensive fight).
For many others, I suspect it hasn't been so positive....and the realisation of that may yet take some time to surface.
All too often, these 'wonder plans' fail to take any account of limited resources, and indeed of human nature!
I repeat my earlier comment - time will tell....

step up wrote:
The problem is the vulnerable are immorally and illegally are the first to be targeted when money is (allegedly) short when given their care is statutory, it makes sence in it be the last to be considered. We have still got an unnecessary (and expensive) Chief Executive ...that is not statutory...just vanity....still a Mayor and all paraphinalia ....not statutory.... When all this nonsence is dispensed with I will believe there is a problem..but no..its business as usual expect for the ones who need it most and should take a 70% reduction in support ! Incredible, illegal and disgusting... Why has Nadine Evans who brought the cut still got a job???

ctrewyou wrote:

step up wrote:
The problem is the vulnerable are immorally and illegally are the first to be targeted when money is (allegedly) short when given their care is statutory, it makes sence in it be the last to be considered. We have still got an unnecessary (and expensive) Chief Executive ...that is not statutory...just vanity....still a Mayor and all paraphinalia ....not statutory.... When all this nonsence is dispensed with I will believe there is a problem..but no..its business as usual expect for the ones who need it most and should take a 70% reduction in support ! Incredible, illegal and disgusting... Why has Nadine Evans who brought the cut still got a job???

You clearly have a personal interest in this case and knowledge of the details, so are probably related to the young man. You seem to have a personal vendetta against individual staff within the Council, which I feel this could be seen as harassment, and the Echo may want to check with their lawyers as they are publishing your comments and abuse of individuals. You seem very determined to hound individual workers out of their jobs. I have not seen the ombudsmans report, but did it name and blame individual members of staff? Do you think that naming individuals in public forums is more, or less, likely to attract commited and dedicated individuals to replace them if you get your wish that they are sacked from their jobs?

step up wrote:

ctrewyou wrote:

step up wrote:
The problem is the vulnerable are immorally and illegally are the first to be targeted when money is (allegedly) short when given their care is statutory, it makes sence in it be the last to be considered. We have still got an unnecessary (and expensive) Chief Executive ...that is not statutory...just vanity....still a Mayor and all paraphinalia ....not statutory.... When all this nonsence is dispensed with I will believe there is a problem..but no..its business as usual expect for the ones who need it most and should take a 70% reduction in support ! Incredible, illegal and disgusting... Why has Nadine Evans who brought the cut still got a job???

You clearly have a personal interest in this case and knowledge of the details, so are probably related to the young man. You seem to have a personal vendetta against individual staff within the Council, which I feel this could be seen as harassment, and the Echo may want to check with their lawyers as they are publishing your comments and abuse of individuals. You seem very determined to hound individual workers out of their jobs. I have not seen the ombudsmans report, but did it name and blame individual members of staff? Do you think that naming individuals in public forums is more, or less, likely to attract commited and dedicated individuals to replace them if you get your wish that they are sacked from their jobs?

Judging by your post you are related to or very friendly with a Council member. If the LGO finds Maladministration, Service Failure and Injustice, these can only be the fault and responsiblity of the individuals involved in the case. Why should they not be named?? As for 'harressment' since Tarik has been identified as the victim of injustice at the hands of these individuals who singled him and his mother out for the most unfair targeting and harrassment over two years being the only service user proposed for a staggering 70% cut where others were given increases, zero cuts or propotionate cuts, I suggest you reassess where your sympathies lie....with the victim or the perpetrator.

ctrewyou wrote:

step up wrote:

ctrewyou wrote:

step up wrote:
The problem is the vulnerable are immorally and illegally are the first to be targeted when money is (allegedly) short when given their care is statutory, it makes sence in it be the last to be considered. We have still got an unnecessary (and expensive) Chief Executive ...that is not statutory...just vanity....still a Mayor and all paraphinalia ....not statutory.... When all this nonsence is dispensed with I will believe there is a problem..but no..its business as usual expect for the ones who need it most and should take a 70% reduction in support ! Incredible, illegal and disgusting... Why has Nadine Evans who brought the cut still got a job???

You clearly have a personal interest in this case and knowledge of the details, so are probably related to the young man. You seem to have a personal vendetta against individual staff within the Council, which I feel this could be seen as harassment, and the Echo may want to check with their lawyers as they are publishing your comments and abuse of individuals. You seem very determined to hound individual workers out of their jobs. I have not seen the ombudsmans report, but did it name and blame individual members of staff? Do you think that naming individuals in public forums is more, or less, likely to attract commited and dedicated individuals to replace them if you get your wish that they are sacked from their jobs?

Judging by your post you are related to or very friendly with a Council member. If the LGO finds Maladministration, Service Failure and Injustice, these can only be the fault and responsiblity of the individuals involved in the case. Why should they not be named?? As for 'harressment' since Tarik has been identified as the victim of injustice at the hands of these individuals who singled him and his mother out for the most unfair targeting and harrassment over two years being the only service user proposed for a staggering 70% cut where others were given increases, zero cuts or propotionate cuts, I suggest you reassess where your sympathies lie....with the victim or the perpetrator.

So you agree that the report did not name individual members of staff. Problems can result from any number of reasons, most likely the systems, and the political leadership in place at the time, but you dont mention anything about the counsellors who atually set the budget and made the policy, who have gone very quiet in the meantime. You are presumably very happy to have forced people out of their jobs, and are confident that the people taking over are of a much higher quality. Having the prospect of being named and blamed is a sure way to attract high quality staff to social services, no doubt.

nottingham wrote:
Another shameful example from BBC. Whilst BBC waste millions on failed sea front projects supported by officials on bloated salaries those most vulnerable pay the price of their failures .

Yes they should resign for their dismissal failures and if we want to really save public money look at merging services across Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole and staff with good quality people this will save on back office costs ensuring more goes to the front line