Haringey Council Adult Social Care Care Assessment Failure and Equipment Regulation Violations

  • Submitted
  • LATE No Stage One Response
  • No Stage Two for Adult Social Care (ASC) Complaints

Background

Equipment Maintenance & Compliance Breakdown

In , the Sara Plus Hoist (a standing hoist where the user actively stands during use) was due for its required six-month service.
This safety inspection did not take place. The equipment had last been serviced in . Due to the missed inspection in , the equipment was left in direct violation of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER).

Consequently, on the care provider sent notification stating they would cease using the hoist due to liability concerns.


For further context on administrative issues, refer to the external analysis at NRS Bankruptcy Aspect and Hoist Repair.

Council Intervention and New Care Assessment

On , a meeting was held at the resident's flat with Haringey Council's Social Worker, Occupational Therapist, and Care Coordinator. The resident was informed that resolving the standing hoist issues could take weeks. When concerns were raised regarding basic independent functions like toileting while bedbound, the temporary solution offered lacked consideration for personal dignity.

Comparative Care Analysis: Sara Plus Hoist vs. Track Hoist

Operating the Track Hoist compared to the Sara Plus introduces fundamental changes to daily care operations.
Crucially, the Track Hoist requires a minimum of two care professionals to operate safely.
As a direct consequence of this logistical requirement, the necessary care budget immediately doubled.

Assessment / Meeting Outcome

Following the meeting on , no formal action plan or follow-up communication was provided by the council, leaving the interim care arrangements unresolved.
  • Private Resolution: I independently contacted the equipment manufacturer directly and successfully arranged a same-day emergency
    service within an hour, taking less than 10 minutes to coordinate.
  • Local Authority Status: No formal action or follow-up was completed by the council following the meeting.

Care Assessment Request

Care assessment Request

The above was submitted .
The date in the document of was the date I started writing the letter.

This was the culmination of a series of events. I had been blocked at every
turn by Haringey Council to find a solution to the Sara Plus Hoist. My last-ditch attempt was
requesting a new Care Assessment.
Technically, each year I undergo a Financial Care Assessment; this evaluates my financial position and sets the amount I contribute to my care.
A Care Assessment focuses on the provision of the care. Over the approximately 14 years I have been receiving home care, my care needs haven't really changed. I’ve always had 4 calls a day. I’ve always used my Sara Plus Hoist. I do not actually recall when the last one was done. Records indicate the last assessment likely occurred around September 2016, coinciding with my relocation to Haringey.

Deep Dive - Statutory Right to Advocacy

A critical element of the submission on 20 April 2026 was the explicit request for an Independent Care Act Advocate (ICAA). Statutory Exception: While standard ASC complaints within Haringey do not automatically trigger independent advocacy, formal Care Act Assessments carry a clear statutory exception where a service user experiences substantial difficulty in engaging with the process. As of June 2026, this legal request has been completely ignored by the local authority, leaving a vulnerable resident to navigate complex administrative failures without the independent representation mandated by law.

Response

  1. Care Act Assessment

  2. I wanted a copy of the Referral that should have been made. So I made a formal Subject Access Request (SAR)

  3. Home Visit

  4. email chasing an update Adam Starr, Michelle Clarke

  5. Chase Email to Jay Khan, Jo Baty, Amanda Edwards, Lucia Nelson, Adam Starr, Michelle Clarke, Pauline McMorrow, Andy Donald.

    The only response received was from Lucia das Neves, who clarified that the issue falls outside her portfolio as she is not the member for Health, Social Care and Wellbeing. Nonetheless, she continues to serve as my local ward councillor.

  6. The Jay Khan called me.

  7. Demand for an in person update, by 5 o'clock .

  8. Tweet by @HaringeyLabour
    Haringey Labour tweeted that "they" were still out in Woodside Ward speaking to local residents. The only person I recognize in the attached picture is Lucia das Neves Unfortunately she is my Ward Councillor. I suspect her understanding of the issue with the hoist is extremely poor,
    I do not believe she has any experience in Adult Social Care, as such probably has a insufficient familiarity of the entire scope of ASC.

    Given this and the entire case I’m left with the conclusion it is systemic administrative failure.

  9. Tracy Park Sent me an unsolicited email.
    My role is to help ensure that communication is more consistent, coordinated, and supportive, and that you are kept updated on the matters you have raised with Adult Social Care.

    This offer was made without my involvement. Tracy Park is the third representative to contact me offering assistance to resolve these issues.

    To support this, I will provide you with regular weekly updates where there is progress or information to share. In addition, if there are particular issues or questions you would like to raise, please contact me directly and I will do my best to assist to ensure that we provide you with correct information as soon as possible.
    You agreed for us to contact Arjo regarding a three-year servicing contract for your Arjo Sara Stedy Plus hoist. I can confirm that we contacted Arjo on 8th May to request a quotation. We have not yet received a response and have sent a follow-up email today asking that they respond as soon as possible.

    According to the statement, Haringey Council initially contacted the manufacturer of the Sara Plus Hoist on , but did not follow up until . Waiting 19 days is inconsistent with a matter requiring urgent attention.

  10. The failure to acknowledge and action the Subject Access Request (SAR) made on has technically expired, as such has been referred to Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Advocate

No advocate exists within the Haringey Council for normal ASC complaints;
this type of complaint, however, is the exception. Independent Care Act Advocate (ICAA)
An advocate was requested in the complaint submission of . As of , this request has been ignored.

Ombudsman

Because no official response to my formal complaint has been received
It’s extremely unlikely the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) will investigate this aspect of the complaint.
Complaints COM_8499 () & COM_9683 ()
are related to the Sara Plus Hoist.
The Final Response for each complaint, does not in any way relate to the request for a Care Assessment
The definitive evidence of systemic failure... The Care Assessment was raised AFTER the final Response for COM_8499 & COM_9683 were received

Outcome

Scenario A: Sara Plus Hoist

This scenario is essentially what I've been doing for about 15 years: to continue using the Sara Plus Hoist.

  • Negotiate and reactivate the formal service agreement with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). This ensures priority technical support, certified parts sourcing, and compliance with safety standards.
  • Establish a formal agreement detailing the anticipated life expectancy of current assets. This document will serve as a strategic roadmap for scheduled decommissioning and capital expenditure (CAPEX) planning for future replacements.
Scenario B: Track Hoist

To swap to using the Track Hoist, the following need to be done/agreed. The following is a dealbreaker: if a suitable commode can't be sourced, the entire concept won't work.

  • A commode that’s suitable for me to use needs to be sourced. This commode would have to work with my Closomat toilet.
  • My 4 care calls a day would be extended to a minimum of 2 hours. The Track Hoist is a completely different type of care. I've not used any other type of hoist other than my Sara Plus standing hoist in 14 years.

Q&A

The questions have arisen as the saga unfolds. Some are questions for me, some are for Haringey Council to answer.

What part did NRS Bankruptcy play?

They went bankrupt, so the scheduled service of the Sara Plus standing hoist did not take place.

What action did Haringey Council take to mitigate the NRS Bankruptcy?

None. They have never actually informed service users of the bankruptcy or how the service would be maintained.

Since what’s been done?

Very little. The changes don’t actually make a difference or logical sense.
The only change Haringey Council made (without informing me) was to increase the care time to 60 minutes at my 4 care calls a day.
This modification yields no practical benefit; it fails to facilitate the use of the Track Hoist while unnecessarily escalating the council's expenditure.

Haringey Council maintain that they are actively working to resolve the Sara Plus Hoist.
So changing the care package (even wrongly) was unnecessary.

What progress has been made since the communication from Tracy Park?

Since the email correspondence from Tracy Park, there has been no substantive change or resolution to the issues raised.

The 1st full work week commenced on and concluded on .

The 2nd full work week commenced on and concluded on .

The 3rd full work week commenced on and concluded on .

The weekly progress updates promised by the Adult Social Care representative on 27 May 2026 have not been issued for three consecutive intervals, constituting a material failure to adhere to the agreed communication strategy.

The Broken Promises: Why the weekly progress updates promised by Tracy Park on May 27th have resulted in absolutely nothing changing weeks later

Only Haringey Council can answer this question.

Who is accountable?

Again, "complex" would be an understatement.
A series of administrative concerns have contributed directly to this service breakdown. Companies going bankrupt is not new. Ultimately it was the choice of the LGSCO, who declined to investigate COM_9683. Had they investigated it, it is possible the lack of maintenance may have been discovered. Jo Baty, while not directly involved with my care, as the ASC Director is ultimately responsible for the incredibly bad service from ASC.

While I blame Jo Baty for this failure, @HaringeyLabour, particularly two Woodside Ward Councillors, Lucia das Neves and Thayahlan Iyngkaran, also share the accountability.

I blame Jo Baty.

Jo Baty ASC Director

Due to an unverified email address, the initial lack of response was assumed to be a delivery failure.
However, on I received the Out Of Office notice with her full signature.
This makes her lack of response a choice on her part. She is avoiding accountability and ignoring a disabled resident with genuine concerns.

Why are Haringey Council ignoring you?

This is best asked of Haringey Council. However, it would be reasonable to assume Haringey Council have listed me as a persistent and abusive customer. However, this fails to acknowledge I have genuine concerns. NRS did go bankrupt. My Sara Plus Hoist did miss a service. I did ask for a Care Assessment.
These are facts.
Also, Haringey Council don’t provide an advocate, so if I don’t complain, who will?

Criticism

We found a culture of apathy underpinned the issues in the London Borough of Haringey. There is a distinct lack of ownership, accountability, and intrinsic motivation when handling complaints.

While a direct quote from the Housing Ombudsman—so naturally it would lean towards housing-related concerns—it’s not a major leap to attribute this to the entire senior management.