Council checks

KenWDen

I'm unfortunately disabled, caused by negligence from my council BFBC, and the nhs damaging my spinal column caused by negligence causing compressing disc'

Whilst in Charing Cross my late mother unknown to me filled in a council form letting my council know I was disabled in Charing Cross and might be some delay in council tax being paid and signed it. It included a line about carrying out checks on my accounts asking for permission. Having checked with a solicitor she had no more rights to do this than Jo Bloggs down the street and was not my next of kin. After my mum died in 2013 I was thinking about buying a stair lift and nurses insisted the council had a department to help out. I told the gentleman concerned I did not any checks into my account and would buy the system myself, and he assured me that if I was buying no checks would be done unless I filled in a form asking for a grant or to "borrow" until I didn't need it ie dead! So no idea of defrauding anybody. I was concerned with due reason my council might not know what they were doing since as executor of mums will I still had funds to dispose of to other beneficiaries. I got a letter from him apologising I had failed a check he claims not to have asked for, as I would be buying, and h provided a price for myself buying a second hand set BFBC held. I was livid as I don't like snooping. He hd no answer to my "you promised me" comment, muttering it just happened. I made a formal complaint to the council, but got a rebuff fromthe CEO, saying I had signed a form and enclosed it. I was the one my late mum signed 6 years earlier clearly saying "mother" next to her signature. I knew nothing about this, it was a "nice gesture" to BFBC and as a solicitor said did not give authority any ability to snoop my accounts! Bearing in mind it was authority negligence that crippled me for life- unable to stand. I pointed this out to authority and the CEO who wrote back they had done nothing wrong,nor would BFBC be replying further on the matter. I was tempted to bring proceedings back to court - I'd got a pittamce etc for destroyed trousers, and payment for what I believed was a leg injury, turned out to be sciatica from a damaged disc - who knew. The council admitted negligence and liability due to all sorts of issues not checking the road, not responding to a residents reporting o the obvious danger etc.. The judge told me if the nature of the injury became clearer and it was more serious I could come back anytime, whether 6 months. 5 years, 10 years or 50 years, though would have to show was the same injury. That on918661ce responsibility, liability and the injury were established there was no time limit. BFBC disagree saying "settled in full".

Now having fallen off the bed it did a surprising amount of damage and injury and have the district nurses out regularly. They've pushed me to getting BFBC involved again, suggesting a better chair etc. I'm fearing the same snooping despite me making my anti-snoop feelings clear saying I would rather buy no matter how much it will cost. She is keen I borrow/get a gnt or whatever and assures me once again no snooping involved as "not means tested". I've heard all this before. Solicitors have told me my late mum coundn't authorise and if thy thought she was next of kin, I'm still capable of consnting and after such a period would need to make sure she was still alive - she wasn't! They may thought I signed a form from the stairlift guy but didn't. How can I check, -contact my bank?

Equally still thinking about being crippled for life and contacting the court. Personally I hink your banks should tell you after 6 months which is more than enough time for a council to complete its enquiries and if they find nothing apologise.          

elsien

It would  much better leaving out all the extraneous information such as damaged trousers. It’s quite hard to plough through that lot and work out what you’re asking. 

As far as I can tell you have two separate questions going on in there. One about means testing and one about additional injury compensation. 

With regard to disability equipment, it really depends what you need and he might be providing it. Movable equipment such as in a house disability aids tend to be free.
Buildings  adaptations via the disabled facility grant will always be means tested. 

No idea about your compo question other than  to say I wouldn’t trust a solicitor who was banging on about next of kin because that is meaningless under the law. But if you want to know what documents and information the council hold on you, then make a subject access request.

DullGreyGuy

KenWDen said:
The judge told me if the nature of the injury became clearer and it was more serious I could come back anytime, whether 6 months. 5 years, 10 years or 50 years, though would have to show was the same injury. 

I have little experience of Scots Law but thats not how the law works in England & Wales and I very much doubt thats how it works in Scotland. 

Assuming you're competent the law gives you 3 years to litigate for injuries from the date of knowing. You can only litigate once for a single incident. The court case however can go on for years if the prognosis is still uncertain with interim awards for ongoing costs or elements that can be finalised. Most the time its a brief case management hearing periodically to review the position and then deferred again until the docs are confident in giving a prognosis. Then the judge makes their order and the case is closed. These are multi-track cases where the damages claimed are over £100,000

Obviously can't say what the judge told you and dont want to speculate on it. If you believe what you believe then reach out to the judge

HillStreetBlues

KenWDen said:

The council admitted negligence and liability due to all sorts of issues not checking the road, not responding to a residents reporting o the obvious danger etc.. The judge told me if the nature of the injury became clearer and it was more serious I could come back anytime, whether 6 months. 5 years, 10 years or 50 years, though would have to show was the same injury. That on918661ce responsibility, liability and the injury were established there was no time limit. BFBC disagree saying "settled in full".

What did you agree to? as the council  and what you claim the judge said can't both be correct.