COM/12886

The complaint was raised on Thursday 30 Jul 2026, and acknowledged on Friday 14 Aug 2026 representing an administrative delay of 15 days.

The acknowledgment refers vaguely to an appropriate officer without identifying who handled the matter, making it impossible to verify their remit or competence.

The acknowledgement fails to clarify whether this was handled under the ASC complaints procedure.

1. Stage One

   While the Stage 1 response letter (25 August 2026) uses polite, formal public-sector phrasing on the surface, several specific elements of its framing, substance, and execution could certainly be described as condescending, dismissive, or patronising:

   Thank you for raising these concerns on behalf of Mr McMorrow. I appreciate the important role you are undertaking as his advocate and recognise that the matters raised relate directly to his care, safety, mobility and independence.

   
   
   This response is dismissive and mischaracterises the situation. I was forced to secure independent advocacy only because Haringey Council failed to fulfill its statutory duty. As this request formed part of a Care Act assessment, the provision of independent advocacy was a legal requirement under Section 67 of the Care Act 2014, not an optional preference. It took the Council 67 days—from my initial request on 20 April 2026 until 26 June 2026—to make the referral. This delay constitutes an unambiguous statutory breach and exemplifies a persistent pattern of procedural failure and poor management across the service.
   Had Haringey Council arranged a Care Act advocate from POhWER in a timely manner, that advocate's statutory remit would have been strictly limited to facilitating my participation in the assessment process, rather than drafting and submitting formal complaints on my behalf.
   
   
   The complaint wasn’t assigned a description as seems to have been the acknowledgement standard. The acknowledgment also failed to clarify if this was an ASC Complaint or Corporate. The complaint RB [Advocate] raised was the “Please can you send through a copy of the outcome of the care needs assessment, that took place on 8th May 2026. This has already been asked for by Mr McMorrow but has not been provided to him. There has not been any communication from Haringey in regards to the changes in care needs, the only way Mr McMorrow was informed about a change of hours (from 4 calls a day: 8am 45 mins, 12pm 30 mins, 5pm 30 mins, 8pm 45 mins to 4 calls a day: 1 hour per call) by the care company Fooscare.” So this was about the documented outcome of the Care Assessment. This would put the claim squarely in the scope of Adult Social Care as a function on Adult Social Care.
   The response stated….

   If you are unhappy with my response, you can ask our Feedback & Resolutions team to review your complaint at the second stage of our internal complaint’s process. Please let the team know what your desired outcomes are, this normally must be done within six months of the response. Their contact details are: Email: S2Complaints@Haringey.gov.uk.

2. 15 September 2026, 09:49 — Escalation

   Only Natalie Cannon acknowledged the email of 31 August 2026.
   The email was sent to Natalie.Cannon@haringey.gov.uk, 11 Council Representatives (including Ward Councillors), bambos.charalambous.mp@parliament.uk [MP] & RB [Advocate].

   See you all In [sic] court. Natalie Cannon [sic] please don’t respond too late. I am going to be spending the weekend as a nervous wreck, I don't need the added stress of a poor response.

3. 15 September 2026, 10:03

   RB [Advocate] submits a challenge detailing procedural delays, omissions and errors. Citing the response failed to address all the points in the complaint.

4. 15 September 2026, 11:01

   Daniel McMorrow escalates RB [Advocate] email to multiple Haringey ward councillors.

5. 15 September 2026, 11:02

   
   The Feedback & Resolutions Team issues an automated acknowledgement warning of up to a thirteen-week allocation delay.
   A statement that in direct violation of the council (published) stage two procedure. It also put the incorrect stage one response squarely in the remit of the LGO under the 16 week rule.

6. 17 September 2026, 11:22

   The Council’s response minimises a serious statutory breach as a mere 'administrative error.' Misdirecting a vulnerable service user to a non-existent internal Stage 2 review—only to subsequently close the complaint and refuse to investigate critical, outstanding care and safety issues—amounts to procedural maladministration that has caused significant distress, avoidable delay, and prejudice to the complainant’s escalation rights.

   I also note the additional questions and concerns raised in your email regarding the Care Act assessment, advocacy support, care calls and communication records, and the Sara Plus hoist. However, as the complaint has now received its final response, the Council will not be undertaking any further investigation of these matters through the complaints process. These points can be raised with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should Mr McMorrow decide to pursue the matter further.

   
   
   I rely heavily on Automation/Smart Tech and AI. I feed the majority of my life into AI. I know categorising the questions as additional questions is fundamentally wrong. All four of those issues were explicitly raised in the original complaint submission on 30 July 2026. But omitted from the stage one response.

7. 18 September 2026, 13:20

   I emailed RB [Advocate], S2Complaints Team, Haringey Complaints Inbox, Councillor Lucia das Neves, Councillor Mark Blake, Councillor Elara Shurety, Councillor Hannah Ward, Councillor Tehseen Khan
   I’ve been screaming for years for the elected individuals todo something. I have genuine concerns as Chief Exec Andy Donald is mostly irreverent. He’s not elected by the people Councillor Hannah Ward, Councillor Tehseen Khan are, they hold the cabinet position for [...] for Health & Social Care (Role-Share). I’d strongly argue their lack of assistance constitutes maladministration and statutory failure.

8. 18 September 2026, 16:17

   Frankie de Tavora [Senior Feedback & Resolutions Officer] responded in a clear effort to have the last word. Absolute nothing in the response was remotely beneficial.
   She effectively shut the door on the complaint, despite the multi unanswered questions.
   My only recourse now is the LGO, who will take MONTH.
   My desired outcome with the LGO will include formal disciplinary action.