Child B, with complex health needs requiring significant health and social care support under the Children Scotland Act 1995 section 23. Attends local primary school and has a Co-ordinated Support Plan. Parents would like an Option 1 under the SDS legislation with PA support for child to enable attending social activities outside of school and 4 nights per week nursing care. They were informed a Direct Payment cannot be used for Education Services or Healthcare Services. Specialist Legal Adviser wrote to the LA setting out the legal context and outlining the level of support Child B required within own home. Highlighting it was necessary to have a joint approach to support planning by Health and Social Care Staff. The Submission, Direct Payment maybe considered if community based (non-acute) healthcare services are included in a jointly planned and arranged package of care and support. Their further submission that relevant social care and healthcare legislation allows that, where the person receives both health and social care, NHS professionals can arrange for transfer of funding from the NHS Board to the Local Authority in order to fund the relevant health outcomes within the person’s joint plan. This funding can then be directed by the person or parent under the four options laid out on the 2013 Act including SDS Option 1.

Client A holds Welfare and Financial Guardianship for an adult Grandson who was detained under the Mental health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 from 2022 in a State Hospital. Diagnosed with complex needs, Aspergers and Autism. Client A’s grandson had a complex childhood and suffered significant trauma as a young child when his mother sadly died. He was estranged from his father. He resided with his grandparents. When he reached adulthood, he was offered a place within a residential placement. He found this extremely challenging. It was clear the residential placements settings did not meet his needs fully and broke down. He was detained in hospital for a considerable period. In the hospital setting he made progress and was under delayed discharge for a significant length of time, no one could collate his case to a long term and sustainable positive outcome.

He is a vulnerable person requiring a level of specialist support, and there were historical barriers to accessing the right provision.

At the outset Client A was trying to reach an agreement with the HSCP. However, this was proving difficult and there were substantial barriers to reaching a person-centered outcome. There were many barriers which was extremely challenging for him as a vulnerable person gaining access to specialist support, with the right to reside in his own home. This was his dream, and he thought this would never happen for him.

CRF’s Actions

CRF provided prelitigation with a request to successfully secure an innovative and creative remedy. Working collaboratively with professional colleagues to prepare a person-centered life plan with a robust approach to secure transition planning with all parties.

We secured and negotiated an outcomes-based Assessment of Need and Support Planning, together with an identified service provider and suitable housing. Given our client’s grandson was on delayed discharge and the NHS Trust were exerting pressure to find a suitable transition placement. There is a significant housing shortage, notwithstanding CRF secured suitable accommodation with a robust care plan in place. Personal assistants were recruited and introduced prior to leaving hospital and the final transition was actioned.

We were aware of the time limits and seamless process which required timely follow up for resolution and remedy from the senior management teams. CRF held the HSCP to account and framed our objections and submissions highlighting all necessary actions for a transition plan in a reasonable time frame supported by the framework for vulnerable people detained in Scotland. This underpins all vulnerable people, and their carers who must be a priority. Social services worked tirelessly to make this outcome come to fusion for the client.

Whilst negotiations ensued with the HSCP partner teams there was little progress for an outcomes-based approach. CRF created bespoke outcomes with the client and instigated meetings to negotiate the input of these outcomes.

The client was successful in gaining an assessed need.  They were granted an Option 2 under an ISF with the provider of choice to provide the necessary support and care. In addition, a suitable new home. The client was extremely grateful for our professional advice, representation and support throughout this entire process. The client is rebuilding his life in the right environment and focusing on his interests and skills he had lost. He is presently thriving and living his best life.

Client B holds Welfare and Financial Guardianship for her adult son who resided with his parents all of his life. He is diagnosed with hydrocephalous, epilepsy and complex care and support needs. Client B’s son wants to live in his own home.

He is a vulnerable person requiring a level of specialist support, with historical barriers to accessing the right provision for him.

At the outset Client B was trying to reach an agreement with the HSCP. However, this was proving difficult and there were substantial barriers to reaching a person-centered outcome for Client B’s son. There were many barriers which was extremely challenging for his as a vulnerable person gaining access to specialist SDS support, with the right to reside in his own home.

CRF’s Actions

It was extremely challenging to secure suitable housing in the area he had resided in his whole life. CRF requested and successfully provided pre litigation conducting meetings for Client B under Ordinary Residence with an innovative and creative remedy. In addition, we secured a suitable property for Client B and worked collaboratively with professional colleagues to prepare a person-centered life plan for Client B to secure robust transition planning with all parties to enable full transition to the new area and home.

We secured and negotiated an outcomes-based Assessment of Need and Support Planning, with the service provider. There is a significant housing shortage, notwithstanding CRF secured a suitable accommodation for Client B’s son with the service provider collaboratively. Personal assistants were recruited, and the final transition was actioned when a full team was in place.

We actioned a seamless process which required timely follow up for resolution and remedy from the senior management teams from both HSCP areas. CRF held both the HSCP’ partners to account and framed our objections and submissions highlighting all necessary actions for a transition plan a reasonable time frame supported by the framework for vulnerable people under Ordinary Residence in Scotland. This underpins all vulnerable people, and their carers. Social services worked tirelessly to make this outcome come to fruition for Client B’s son.

The client was successful in gaining an assessed need. They were granted an Option 2 under an ISF with the provider of choice to provide the necessary support and care. In addition, a suitable new home. The client was extremely grateful for our professional advice, representation and support throughout this entire process. This was a lengthy process taking the professional teams over a year to reach agreement. After a few weeks of moving to his new home he is thriving and living his best life after a few short weeks.

Client C supports her daughters, who both have disabilities.  Both daughters have complex needs. They live in a rented flat which is managed by a Housing Association and the property has been adapted to meet the family’s needs.

Client C suffered with a history of extreme damp issues at the property.  The housing association made attempts to rectify this, and the family lived in temporary budget hotel accommodation for extensive periods of time whilst this remedial work took place. Following this work  catalogue of chaotic events surrounding the problems at the property took place which led to the family living in temporary accommodation for an even more substantial period.  On moving back into their flat for the second time the extreme damp continued to affect their lives.  Client C was not listened to when she reported there were still significant damp issues

CRF’s Actions

• CRF sought mediation with the housing association unsuccessfully.
• CRF assisted Client C with a Subject Access Request to determine the parties who had been contracted to do the unsuccessful remedial work at the property
• CRF wrote to the Housing Association’s legal department seeking immediate remedy as there was a clear breach of the Environmental Protection.
• The Housing Association instructed Counsel
• CRF sought an opinion from Counsel at the Free Legal Services Unit FLSU.
• Counsel agreed with CRF the breaches were extensive with this matter and determined that client C was entitled to rectification and compensation

Client C currently lives in a damp free flat.  Extensive work was carried out on the property.  Client C is seeking compensation.

Client D has a disability and is diagnosed with autism.  He lives alone and although he is viewed as high functioning he has great difficulty with certain aspects of processing connected to daily living.   The social work department have not understood the level of need historically and as a result Client D has faced many difficulties resulting in financial difficulty.

CRF realised that client D had not been given access to what they were entitled to.The social work department had not given client D the necessary level of care and support and  had charged for this care and then penalised him when he was unable to pay.  The local authority finance department regularly threatened him with court action and created great suffering for client D.

CRF’s Actions

• CRF sent a formal proposal seeking an assessment of need, and attended all the assessment of need meetings, navigating due process where necessary.
• CRF liaised with senior managers when there were obstructive practices in place.
• CRF sought a reasonable adjustment with the finance department to create a bespoke approach to how client D was treated which led to a reasonable adjustment contract being created, applying s20 Equality act.

Client D currently has a level of support which is appropriate for his needs.  He has a waiver on his client contribution and has access to the level of care which he was entitled.  All financial matters are dealt with in a bespoke fashion to enable client D to access communication pathways appropriately.

Client E came to CRF for assistance following a serious breach of his son’s care. Client E’s son has extremely complex care needs and requires a high level of care.

Whilst being cared for Client E’s son experienced a potentially life threatening incident involving his carer, a nurse. Client E had done their best to report and seek recompense following this action unsuccessfully.

CRF’s Actions

• CRF mediated with the relevant professional regulator.
• CRF advised and prepared documentation for the regulator to procedurally reevaluate the matter.
• CRF advised client E to pursue both SAR’s and FOI requests.
• CRF advised client to consider Judicial Review

CRF successfully gained material evidence to allow client E to pursue the matter further.  CRF assisted Client E to navigate a difficult re-evaluation of the matter by the professional regulator.

Client E has a rare and complex disability with severe spinal stenosis.Client E resides in their own where home adaptations were necessary. Client E attempted negaotiations with the HSCP over several years, however this proved unsuccessfully. Resulting in Client E travelling to shower at the local swimming pool several times a week. This had a significant impact on Client E overall. Client E was not listened to when reports were made to the HSCP, Client E was dismissed.

CRF’s Actions

• CRF sought mediation with the HSCP, however this was initially unsuccessfully.
• CRF assisted Client E with a Subject Access Request.
• CRF provided written submissions to the HSCP legal department seeking immediate remedy, outlining a clear breach of Client’s E rights and statutory duties.
• The HSCP agreed to mediatiate and a successful outcome was agreed.
• CRF sought full adaptation for Client E

Client E currently lives a fully accessible home.  All necessary adpatations were carried out on the property.  Client E is delighted with this positive outcome.