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

Written by: Daniel McMorrow (dmcmorrow@mage-net.net)
  • Submitted
  • LATE No Stage One Response

Background

Me

I am 42 years old. I contracted meningococcal septicaemia, which resulted in a hypoxic brain injury and required a three-month stay in the ICU at the Princess Royal, a fantastic hospital. Following a successful period in a RHN rehabilitation hospital, I was able to return home—initially to Bromley, and later in 2016, to Wood Green, Haringey. Because of my physical disability, I rely on care four times daily—typically Morning (08:00), Lunchtime (12:30), Tea (17:00), and Bedtime (21:00)—to assist with transfers, hygiene, and daily routines. This has consistently been managed by a single carer (single-handed) largely thanks to my Sara Plus Hoist. While I continue to make progress, full recovery is all but impossible. While standing independently is also extremely unlikely, I focus on more achievable goals, like improving my dexterity.

Physical Function & Weight-Bearing Status

Although I cannot stand independently, I retain weight-bearing capacity in my legs. (I can put my weight on my legs without pain or discomfort) The Sara Plus Hoist is an active standing hoist specifically designed to utilize this remaining strength. Unlike a passive track hoist (which lifts the user completely unsupported), the Sara Plus supports my balance while allowing my legs to bear weight. This key distinction allows me to maintain daily physical function, supports single-handed care for my four daily visits, and enables dignified personal care during transfers.

Equipment Maintenance & Compliance Breakdown

On , 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 on . Due to the missed inspection, 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 my flat with Haringey Council's Social Worker, Occupational Therapist, and Care Coordinator. I 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.
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.

Comparative Care Analysis: Sara Plus Hoist vs. Track Hoist

Operating a 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, effectively doubling the required care budget. More importantly, it shifts my care model from active rehabilitation to passive lifting, stripping away my daily physical independence and dignity during personal care routines. Furthermore, my mother and friends will no longer be able to act as unpaid carers, severely restricting my social interaction and independence outside of formal care hours.

Care Assessment Request

My formal Care Assessment Request was submitted on .

This submission was the direct result of Haringey Council blocking every practical attempt to find a solution for my Sara Plus Hoist.


Technically, the Council conducts a Financial Care Assessment annually to evaluate my financial position and set my care contributions. However, a Care Needs Assessment—which focuses on the actual provision and safety of my care—has been neglected. Despite having complex, single-handed care four times a day, my care needs have not been formally reassessed since my relocation to Haringey around September 2016. A fresh assessment under the Care Act 2014 is a statutory necessity, not an optional request.

Deep Dive - Statutory Right to Advocacy

A critical element of the submission was the explicit request for an Advocate.
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 me to navigate complex administrative failures without the independent representation mandated by law.

Timeline

  1. I requested the council to appoint a Social Worker to refer me to POhWER for a Care Act advocate, as self-referral is not permitted. Additionally, a fresh care assessment is required to address essential equipment needs, specifically a Track Hoist and a compatible commode, noting that the transition to a track hoist necessitates an increase in both carer allocation and visit duration.

  2. Submitted a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) to obtain copies of the missing referral documentation.

  3. Spoke with and received follow-up correspondence from KS (Sara Plus Hoist manufacturer), where I was advised on the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER).

  4. Conversation with Michelle Clarke (Interim Service Manager). We agreed that a formal care assessment would take place within seven days (by ). Proposals to adjust care schedules or staffing levels prior to this assessment were set aside, as any changes must be evidence-based and informed by a comprehensive review of my needs.

  5. Home Visit conducted.

  6. Sent a follow-up email chasing an update from Adam Starr and Michelle Clarke.

  7. Sent a chaser email to Jay Khan, Jo Baty, Amanda Edwards, Lucia Nelson, Adam Starr, Michelle Clarke, Pauline McMorrow, Andy Donald.

    The sole response was from Cllr Lucia das Neves, who noted that this issue sits outside her cabinet portfolio (Health, Social Care and Wellbeing), though she remains my local ward councillor.

    • —
      UPDATE: Cllr Lucia das Neves has been appointed Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Despite assuming this crucial oversight role—which exists specifically to hold the Council's operations to account—she has taken no action to investigate or intervene. By continuing to ignore Haringey Council’s repeated breaches of statutory timescales, LOLER safety regulations, and internal complaint procedures, she is failing to exercise the fundamental mandate of her own committee.

  8. Received a telephone call from Jay Khan.

  9. Issued a formal request for an in-person update by 17:00 today.

  10. Received unsolicited contact from Tracy Park offering to coordinate communication and provide weekly updates regarding Adult Social Care. This intervention was initiated without my involvement—marking the third representative assigned to mediate these issues.

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

    The weekly progress updates promised by Tracy Park have not been issued for seven consecutive intervals (as of mid-July 2026), constituting a material, ongoing failure to adhere to the self-imposed (by Haringey Council) communication strategy.

  11. ICO Escalation: The statutory response period for the 27 April SAR expired without action. The matter has been formally referred to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

  12. Provider Clarification: Foos Care clarified details regarding the revised care package (single-carer, 1 hour, 4x daily). They explicitly confirmed that operating a track hoist safely requires a two-person ("double-handed") team and noted that the Council had only updated care hours without transmitting necessary details regarding equipment requirements.
    While the Council formally increased my total daily care allocation from 150 minutes to 240 minutes, this administrative adjustment has absolutely no substantive effect on how my care is delivered. Without resolving the underlying equipment crisis or authorizing the two-person team required for a track hoist, simply adding more minutes on paper does not address the fundamental safety and operational failures.

  13. Formally served a Letter Before Claim on Haringey Council, establishing a compliance deadline of .

  14. Haringey Council requested an extension on the Letter Before Claim to .

    Response: This request was formally rejected with full justification. The Council provided no counter-proposals or further response following the rejection.

  15. The original legal deadline for the Letter Before Claim expired with no response or acknowledgement from the Council.

  16. Severe risk of psychological harm
    Consulted with a trusted medical professional regarding the ongoing Sara Plus Hoist issues and the associated risks.

  17. The Council's self-proposed extension deadline of expired without a substantive response.

    A follow-up email triggered an automated out-of-office reply from the lead caseworker ("On leave, returning 13.07.26"), confirming the department failed to make operational provisions to manage their own proposed deadline.

  18. Escalated and formally referred the matter to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

  19. Haringey Council’s delayed response was received completely unannounced. Although the previous request for a 9-day extension had been formally rejected, no response was provided by either the original deadline or the Council's self-proposed extension date.
    The response arrived:
    • 36 days after my original pre-action deadline of
    • 27 days after the Council's own self-proposed extension deadline of

Ombudsman

Because the council has failed to provide a Stage One response, they are effectively blocking the escalation process. It is therefore extremely unlikely the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) will investigate this aspect, as their mandate typically requires the local authority's internal complaints process to be exhausted first.

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. Crucial Prerequisite: A commode that integrates seamlessly with my Closomat toilet must be sourced. Without this, the entire track hoist transition is unviable.

  • My 4 care calls a day would be extended to a minimum of 2 hours to accommodate two-carer coordination, sling positioning, passive hoisting protocols, and complex commode transfers. 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.
  • Loss of Physical Leg Function & Weight-Bearing: Switching to a Track Hoist replaces active standing with passive lifting. Removing daily weight-bearing opportunities will lead to progressive muscle atrophy, reduced joint integrity, and the loss of remaining functional strength in my legs that I have maintained for over 14 years.