• Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 28 subscribers
  • Views 1552 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

My Local Authority Caught Lying to LGO

stopthenoise

I have been struggling with my Local Authority to get some help, after many months getting nowhere I made a complaint, that got ignored so I had to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman, the crux of my complaint was that they do not even have an autism lead. Months later, my complaint was answered and to satisfy my complaint the Service Manager gave a name as the autism lead (Commissioner who is responsible for commissioning services for people with autism which they are supposed to have by law). However a while later I found the direct contact number for this person and they said that was not there job and gave another name - who is actually the head of commissioning (which means his/her portfolio is not a clear commissioning responsibility for adults with autism.)

Also the autism act says the autism lead should be made public, which again is not the case.

A few weeks later I called again (and recorded the conversation because I know they will try to wangle out of it), I asked for the person by name, they confirmed it, asked if they were the autism lead, they said no, I asked if they had ever been the autism lead, they said no, I asked who was the autism lead and they gave the name of the head of commissioning again.

I think this is quite serious because it clearly shows that not only myself, but the Local Government Ombudsman has been lied to by my local authority, obviously the purpose being to simply to satisfy my complaint.

On top of this the assessment I had was illegal. According to the autism act it is expected that "staff in roles which have a direct impact on access to services for adults with autism such as GPs, community care assessors and commissioners/service planners have received specialist autism training" and to satisfy this part of the complaint the service manager replied to my MP, 'the people who carried out the assessment have worked extensively with people with autism and so have a good understanding of the needs of people with autism'

.........seriously??? a good understanding is a world apart from 'specialist autism training'.

I have now further complained that I have been lied to, I want to know who the autism lead is, why I have been given a different name in an official document, why the autism lead is not made public, and I want to know exactly what training the assessors had at the time of the assessment, and that I want a proper assessment carried out by an occupational therapist with an understanding of sensory issues in people with an ASD, as recommended by NAS, but I doubt I will hear anything for another 3 months but if i do I will post it here.

Parents

  • It is very difficult to prove a complaint through a local authority, and the Local Authority Ombudsman has a let out clause in many cases that there isn't a clear breach in law. Often, while unfair, nothing illegal has occurred.

    The Commissioning Officer is technically the same as the Autism Lead.  Except often local authorities haven't actually done this - just the Autism Act requires it, so to get round the Autism Act they give a named person, a commissioner or lead for something else. That person may have nothing to do with it. If there is a commissioning officer he/she may be the one for mental health or learning disability who is nominally covering autism, but doesn't.

    Of course that was the purpose of the Act, to get a specific autism commissioning officer/lead in place, rather than autism being covered by mental health or learning disability.

    The trouble is the Government allowed local authorities to get round this by having autism as a specified part of a partnership board, so it can be under the commissioning officer or lead for mental health or learning disability. They are supposed to table separately, but probably don't. My former local authority only discussed autism if it was comorbid with a learning disability.

    So the loophole is that that commissioner or lead is nominated to lead for autism, but hasn't officially been given the role. Gilbert & Sullivan wrote an opera about this sort of thing - The Mikado - where an execution existed on paper even if not in reality.

    So you can ask the designated commissioner, and he/she is telling the truth if they say they don't cover autism. That's because it has not been made official. And the Local Authority is not in default either, because they've made it the intention, even if not actually implemented. And that I'm afraid to say is good enough for the Government, and the Local Government Ombudsman.

    Just it is tough on us. The Autism Act was a sop.

    Although where NAS is in all this......? I was waiting to see if the Mods would comment, but I suspect NAS really doesn't comprehend that the Autism Act is all talk no action - like the Mikado, its as good as implemented.

Reply

  • It is very difficult to prove a complaint through a local authority, and the Local Authority Ombudsman has a let out clause in many cases that there isn't a clear breach in law. Often, while unfair, nothing illegal has occurred.

    The Commissioning Officer is technically the same as the Autism Lead.  Except often local authorities haven't actually done this - just the Autism Act requires it, so to get round the Autism Act they give a named person, a commissioner or lead for something else. That person may have nothing to do with it. If there is a commissioning officer he/she may be the one for mental health or learning disability who is nominally covering autism, but doesn't.

    Of course that was the purpose of the Act, to get a specific autism commissioning officer/lead in place, rather than autism being covered by mental health or learning disability.

    The trouble is the Government allowed local authorities to get round this by having autism as a specified part of a partnership board, so it can be under the commissioning officer or lead for mental health or learning disability. They are supposed to table separately, but probably don't. My former local authority only discussed autism if it was comorbid with a learning disability.

    So the loophole is that that commissioner or lead is nominated to lead for autism, but hasn't officially been given the role. Gilbert & Sullivan wrote an opera about this sort of thing - The Mikado - where an execution existed on paper even if not in reality.

    So you can ask the designated commissioner, and he/she is telling the truth if they say they don't cover autism. That's because it has not been made official. And the Local Authority is not in default either, because they've made it the intention, even if not actually implemented. And that I'm afraid to say is good enough for the Government, and the Local Government Ombudsman.

    Just it is tough on us. The Autism Act was a sop.

    Although where NAS is in all this......? I was waiting to see if the Mods would comment, but I suspect NAS really doesn't comprehend that the Autism Act is all talk no action - like the Mikado, its as good as implemented.

Children
No Data