The LGO are another cog in the wheel, whose ultimate job is to confuse and bemuse.
They provide as little info as possible usually in a bizarre manner as to confuse. They quote law but they interpret it how they like and you can't challenge them.
For example when you contact LGO they decide if they can investigate However at this point
they only have the "final" response from
Haringey Council
.
So unless the "final" response covers everything to LGO don't consider it in their decision.
In the LGO issued the Annual Performance Review Two very telling statements are made in the report.
Statement One & Statement Two
The first Statement tells us despite Haringey Council continuously under performing, The LGO have done nothing.
So the council have never faced responsibility and over time have felt no consequences
The Second Statement tells us the LGO resort to idle threats. As case notes should be requested, failure should result in consequences.
This continued behaviour by the LGO, to placate Haringey Council destroys The claim by LGO they impartial.
Because By allowing Haringey Council to avoid accountability the LGO are denying the victim Justice and in extreme case putting them in danger.
While the LGO request case notes from the Council the investigation is paused, nothing can progress. Therefore delaying this disclosure only benefits the Council.
I have always (Since 2018) wanted Neatdek 3 Shower Grilles
I will concede my description of this product has been bizzar, However Haringey Council should have researched the product after being told it exists
On My case handler asked the council several direct question directly.
Thees questions directly impact the case. A response was due by The question even stated if this was not possible to let them know.
On Haringey Council responded to the enquiries of
background
In 2018 My wetroom was FIXED by my landlord. A traditional wetroom the floor is shightly slopped towards the drain this is refered to as a graident.
This is to allow water to flow away. it makes sense. The graident has never been checked (This is important)
Unfortunately while walking on this gradient should never be a problem, my equipment is a compltly diffrent story.
On entring the room the gradient pulls the hoist towards the wall. When os the toilet the hoist is unstable.
Agreement
After destoring all of
Haringey Council
points about fictitious problems.
These include the design of the hoist, the breaks are bad and the wheels are bad.
The LGO finial gave the most soft touch decision they could Visit the link
This decision found fault but never tells
Haringey Council
to fix the problem.
After apprently researching the product (Fact 1) Mr Brazil (OT), Mr Clark (Surveyor) and the contractor...
did agree to install my soulation. (Fact 1)
However!
During the installation the contractor (that had according to Haringey, had been involved in the product research) claimed the Neatdek was looked flimsy
LGO AGAIN
The LGO couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag, with a map, compass and flashlight.
My concern was based on 3 emails ,
and . I submitted a 12 page document to The LGO
In this document I quote the email and provide my views on what is said... I then submitted the document along to PDF copies of the email.
Download the PDF
In the Final Decision the only aspect of my complaint that is covered appers to be the decision by the contractor
not to install the Neatdek and how this decession was reached. It's disclosed the wrong product was purchased but this appers to have had no bearing on the outcome.
Other Missing aspect of my complaint are...
independent arbitrator vs. expert witness
You suggested that an independent arbitrator (with expertse in providing safe bathroom facili?es for people with disabilites) is commissioned to provide a
report whether what you are reques?ng is reasonable or not. The Council contends that you have been assessed by one of its inhouse OT's and was then passed to one of its external OT’s from
Inclusion. When the OT's did not agree with your posi?on you refused to con?nue to engage with the OT service.
My request wasn't for independent arbitrator but for an expert witness. Both myself and Haringey Council would write a joint
letter refered to as JOINT LETTER of INSTRUCTION we would both get to ask question and make comments the EXPERT WITNESS would then evulate
Independent
The external OTs from Inclusion wasn't independent. They had only been instructed by Haringey Council.
I had no say in who or how they operate.
Advocate
We also referred you for an advocate, but she emailed a Service Manager (Kerine Smith) in the Integrated Care Service to
advise that she will no longer be working with you following instruc?on from you.
I concluded Having an advocate was more stressful than navigating it on my own.
The advocate attended 1 meeting of scheduled meetings. Missed meetings of and .
At the meeting of , the morning of the meeting advocate advised via email she could not attend.
This left me feeling extremely anxious and stressed. I had prepared for the scheduled meeting with the intent of having my advocate, to support me.
Vicky Murphy
(Service Director & Deputy DASS Adults, Health and Communities)
never responded to enquiries from the advocate.
This also ignores the time it took to get the advocate...I requested an advocate on but the referral to Advocate Service wasn't made until .
I wasn't provided with an update until .
Safeguarding Criteria
In the Summary of Home Visit to Mr Daniel McMorrow on 25/01/2023 @13:15 hours that outlined the meeting with Ajibola Awogboro – Interim Head of Service – Assessment and Safeguarding
In this Summary several bizzar statements are made, including...
I disagreed that the situation meets the criteria for it to be classed as a safeguarding concern. I suggested that because Daniel is aware of the risks,
he can be cautious and avoid unintentional injury because he is fully aware of the alleged risks
whose job title
is "Customer Experience Manager" is acting as a go-between between myself and Ajibola.Awogboro@haringey.gov.uk / the Adult Social Care Team
Transfer
Not discussed in the Final Decision is a major issue. As this is a clear attempt to blame me.
An OT would not usually recommend a client be transferred onto the toilet in the way you are transferred and would usually recommend a hoisted transfer onto a mobile commode
and then being wheeled over the toilet. You have refused this option, which remains the Councils positon.
I could write a novel on this statement / position that would make A la recherche du temps perdu by Marcel Proust look like a quick read.
Investigation Statement One
This is an extremely bizarre Statement. I am best placed to state...
I am disabled 24x7 (and have been for 13 years.) I know what I can and can't do.
If I feel MY NEEDS are being met
This is an extremely bizarre Statement, especially given the private OT had blamed the gradient for the issues.
Agreed action
I did not and will not agree to ANOTHER meanness apology from Haringey Council. I would prefer to under go brain surgery by Dr. Hannibal Lecter, with Jeffrey Dahmer as scrub nurse.
The "final decision" investigation is opened with
It took years for the Council and Mr B to reach agreement
Yet your "agreed action" is for ANOTHER assessment.
The likely outcome of another assessment is we end in another dead lock
The LGO have positioned themselves as the end of council complainants, yet won't get involved in disputes with Opts
Knowing this I hired a private OT. Who did disagree with Haringey Council. Yet disregard the views or advice given.
Concerned, but not enough to do anything.
The LGO love to provide partial information and present it as a defence.
My Care Company did contact Haringey Council / First Response Team Firstresponseteam@haringey.gov.uk on and
following them attending my property and seeing the issues first hand.
At no point was a response to these enquiries received. At no point did Haringey Council Raise concerns over the usage of the hoist with the care company.
Safeguarding referral
The LGO love to provide partial information and present it as a defence.
I did make a safeguarding referral as I was hurt in the wet room. However I was informed it did not meet the threshold for safeguarding
11 days later, without any enquiry or investigation into the issue.
The LGO did not comment on that. Just accepted the threshold excuse.
The LGO did not comment on the fact Ajibola Awogboro (Interim Head of Service – Assessment and Safeguarding) attended on
the .
or
Reading the report you would conclude it was an extremely long process but an Agreement to Install the requested Neatdek 3 shower grill had been reached
However during the installation process the contractor decided the Neatdek was looked flimsy
This was only discovered AFTER my existing wet room had been physically dismantled.
Had the looked flimsy comments been made prior to the existing wet room be dismantled my position would have been to halt the works until clarification can be obtained.
So an individual with no medical, Occupational therapy or disability background felt qualified enough to make comments. The investigation report and having
experienced it first hand, I don't know who made the decision to abandon the Neatdek.
On Lesley Clay stated Mr Brazil (OT), Mr Clark (Surveyor) and the contractor...
We are led-to-believe from the above extract the contractor was involved in evaluating the Neatdek.
On The caseworker said...
So we can deduce a video was taken of the flimsy Neatdek. We can also deduce that the decision to abandon it did not involve an OT.
Alarmingly the LGO have based a large portion of the investigation report on a video they have not seen.
With the knowledge that an OT had not been involved with flimsy-gate the council lost all credibility.
When this is taken with fact the wrong type of Neatdek was purchased. The LGO should have instantly found fault and order Haringey Council to preform the works as agreed.
