On 18th March 2010, F received a blank form from Ms Stella Baillie, telling him, without any justification, that henceforth he will be responsible for the full cost of his ‘domestic care’. No justification for this decision was given to him.
Incomplete information is nothing new. It seems to be RBKC’s ingrained custom to avoid giving a full explanation to anyone. This is clearly alluded to in para 20-25 of Savva v RBKC, which deals with a similar matter.
Coincidentally, on 18th March 2010, same day F received the form from Ms Baillie, Mr Desmond Owusu turned up, allegedly to carry out a re-assessment of F’s needs and to give him advice on how to spend his money.
Having just been informed a few hours earlier that he will be responsible for his care, Mr Owusu’s offer was crass and irrelevant. F was hardly in a mood to listen to his suggestions and asked him to leave, which he did. He was not heard from since.
Strangely, an unverified and unsigned by F, Care Plan Review, emerged, completed and signed by Mr Desmond Owusu on 18th March 2010. This is nothing put a pure FABRICATION, prepared from old Reviews, without any new input from F.
Mr Owusu states in his Review that F was upset over the reduction in the weekly cost of the domestic help. He quotes an amount of £ 54.30, which was allegedly reduced to £ 51,75 per week, gross. It is not clear where he got his figures from. After the assessment, the weekly total cost remained almost the same – from £ 55.06 to £ 55.24.
F was not all that concerned, about the loss of this small contribution from RBKC towards the cost. F’s Direct Payments Reports for the 2010, show that prior to the assessment RBKC’s contribution amounted to a paltry £ 39.90 per week, F’s contribution of £ 15.16, making a total cost of £ 55.06 per week for his ‘domestic cleaner’.
After an exchange of emails, F agreed to undergo a new Financial Assessment, hoping that it would provide a non-eligible result, on the grounds that he has adequate funds to cover this small cost.
However, F was surprised when he was given a new summary and found that due to taking some additional domestic costs into consideration, RBKC’s contribution rose to £ 43.02 and F’s reduced to £ 11.28 per week; the total remaining almost at £ 54.30 per week.
F was getting increasingly frustrated by the bureaucratic red tape and the various constraints associated with the Direct Payment scheme, on which he was since 2006. The frequent duplicated requests for documents already submitted with his regular reports.