£1m state payout for 'blacklist’ care staff

[jimbo 111]

Sixty nurses and care staff accused of abusing or endangering elderly residents have received out-of-court settlements worth a total of £1,062,005
Nurses and care home workers accused of abusing or endangering elderly residents have been paid £1 million in Government compensation, after judges ruled that their human rights had been breached.
Sixty nurses and care staff received out-of-court settlements worth a total of £1,062,005, including legal costs, last year, equating to £17,700 each.
The compensation was paid after they were automatically placed on a “blacklist” banning them from working with vulnerable adults as soon as allegations of misconduct against them were made.
The most senior judges in the country ruled that the blacklisting procedure broke human rights law by denying nurses the right to a fair hearing before suspending them without pay for months, forcing some to sell their homes.
The majority of the banned nurses were later cleared when they appealed against their suspensions but allegations against six were still in place when they received the compensation last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...1m-state-payout-for-blacklist-care-staff.html

 

[jeany123]

Lost for words

 

[mrjelly]

The judgement seems reasonable to me and the payouts not excessive. According to the Telegraph all but 6 of the 101 originally accused workers have been cleared, with the other cases still pending.

It is always going to be a difficult balance when trying to protect vulnerable people and the legitimate rights of care workers at the same time.

 

[Wirralson]

You need to read carefully what the problem is here. The issue is that individuals were permanently blacklisted before the allegations against them were investigated. This kind of knee-jerk reaction bedevils the NHS and much social services work and also teaching to an extent. Good practice requires individuals are either suspended or removed from a position where they can do harm and provisionally barred from working with the vulnerable. But permanent exclusion should only occur where allegations are proved or there is such serious doubt over the individual's actions that it would be unreasonable to allow the individual concerned to continue to work with vulnerable persons. Not for the first time spectacular legal ignorance has cost the taxpayer.

W

 

[jenniferpa]

The judgement seems reasonable to me and the payouts not excessive. According to the Telegraph all but 6 of the 101 originally accused workers have been cleared, with the other cases still pending.

It is always going to be a difficult balance when trying to protect vulnerable people and the legitimate rights of care workers at the same time.

Absolutely.

 

[Pickles53]

Good points Wirralson. In the rush to be seen to 'do something' often stoked up by hysterical and inaccurate press reports, not only are the innocent badly treated but sometimes the guilty end up bring compensated because correct legal procedures have not been followed.

 

[WILLIAMR]

£17,700 does sound like a lot of money but it is not much if those carers can never get a job again.
Even though they have been cleared mud sticks and employers can always find reasons not to employ somebody.

William

 

[Grannie G]

Mud certainly does stick and I`m afraid I`m guilty of being affected when people who have eventually been found innocent have been named .

 

[handyjack]

I always thought in this country a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise (by a jury of his/her peers) ? Why should someone be blacklisted before the result of investigations/hearings?
A carer I worked with was suspended after a resident made the complaint that they had been hit by the carer (this in a lounge full of other residents and staff) They were immediately suspended. Due to the stress from this incident (subsequently found that the resident was indeed mistaken) the carer felt she couldn't return to work. She was a damn good carer and had simply tried to gently steer the resident away from an emergency exit. The resident had perceived this as being hit, because he couldn't go where he apparently wanted to go. (we have got to be very careful when someone with dementia tries to explain something in their terms, which change with every sentence) I think a degree of common sense is needed in our profession and we accept statements from residents at face value at our own peril, before we're watching our own backs instead of watching the residents.

 

[antonybaker61]

Sorry I don't agree with your comments

I can't belive some of you are supporting this. As a vulnerable adult myself who has been abused by carers myself I find this abhorent that you would support these carers getting this. Where are my human rights. I certainly never received any pay out for the emotional distress my abuse caused me and the woman never even got charged or anything. I am sorry but in these cases it is the word vulnerable word against theres. No one would lie about abuse and most of it is videod anyway and witness statements taken. The needs of the vulnerable adult are paramount. Not enough carers are blacklisted if you ask me and they are able to still apply for jobs at another home or apply for jobs in the community through direct payments where sometimes it isn't possible to get a proper check on someone as people still get good references.

 

[jenniferpa]

Hi and welcome to Talking Point.

I don't think anyone is saying that a carer who has been blacklisted for cause should be entitled to a payment like this. I think that has been made fairly clear by the comments that none of us believe this. The problem arises when people have been blacklisted purely on the basis of allegations that have been subsequently been found to have no merit and no evidence supporting them.

No one should be subjected to abuse: I think that's a given. And anyone who is convicted of abusing a person should 1) not be permitted to work in the care field, and 2) should not receive a payment for being unable to work in that field any longer.

 

[Kevinl]

I can't belive some of you are supporting this.QUOTE]

I think the problem is Antony that most of us on here who care for someone with dementia get accused of things all the time. My mother spent her last 3 years with me and at times she accused me of stealing all kinds of things, being a thief, a liar and allsorts. Now years later I have a wife with AZ and again the paranoia starts, I have a couple of women upstairs (apparently), neglect her even though we're together 24/7 and so it goes on.
Companies usually make out of court settlements when the believe they will lose the case so it's the cheapest option for them, in court the compensation may be much higher plus the legal costs. If they had a case and video evidence they would go infront of the judge, the payment is in effect an admission of guilt.
I don't know the circumstances of your situation but you too have the right to a legal remedy against those who abused you.
I've posted a few days ago on here that I'm in favour of cameras in care homes, only a few would need to be real the rest could be dummys, if the staff think it is possible they are being filmed then hopefully they would think twice before they did anything stupid. I want to see the bad staff weeded out as much as anybody but there has to be a balance.
K

 

[lexy]

deleted