A pensioner who was placed on a waiting list for free personal care by his local council has died while the legal row over the way he was treated rumbles on, it emerged yesterday.
William McLachlan, 91, was told by Argyll and Bute Council that it did not have enough money to provide him with free care when he was admitted to a residential home.
His son, Billy, complained to Professor Alice Brown, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, who ruled that the local authority was wrong to delay four months of payments - around £3000.
The council took the case to the Court of Session, which yesterday heard claims that Prof Brown had failed to understand properly the legislation which introduced free personal care when carrying out her investigation.
But Billy McLachlan, 61, accused the council of "invasion of privacy" and of wasting thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in pursuing the matter in court.
He also claimed the Scottish Executive was guilty of "dereliction of duty" for failing to introduce a more efficient way of ensuring that every council had enough money to implement its flagship policy.
Addressing Lord Macphail, Mr McLachlan informed the court that his father had died on April 4 - a month after the case was first heard in court and a year after the council started paying for his personal care. He said that the way free personal care is funded should be changed to ensure no councils are short of money.
At the moment, councils have to find the money from the block grant they receive from the Scottish Executive.
Mr McLachlan said that instead, councils should work out how much they need to implement the policy and send the executive a bill.
"It's a simple, fast and efficient solution and we're entitled to ask why it hasn't been done," he told the court. "I consider it a dereliction of duty that it hasn't been done."
In her report, Prof Brown said that under the Community Care and Health Scotland Act 2002, which introduced free personal care, councils were obliged to provide payments. She also said that although councils could use waiting lists for some services, they could not use them for free personal care.
Her ruling raised hopes that free care waiting lists would end, but the Court of Session has heard that her findings are not legally binding.
David Johnstone, QC, counsel for the council, yesterday said the reasoning behind the ombudsman's decision was "flawed" because she had not properly understood the law.
He said: "Where there has been a manifest lack of rigour, the court should make it clear that the report lacks authority.
"In a case such as this, where everyone recognises that the findings go beyond the particular complainer and are capable of effecting a larger number of people and local authorities, it's particularly important that they should be based on a proper understanding of the law."
Lord Macphail is expected to make public his findings in around four weeks.Kevin Schofield Scottish Political Correspondent A PENSIONER who was placed on a waiting list for free personal care by his local council has died while the legal row over the way he was treated rumbles on, it emerged yesterday.
William McLachlan, 91, was told by Argyll and Bute Council that it did not have enough money to provide him with free care when he was admitted to a residential home.
His son, Billy, complained to Professor Alice Brown, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, who ruled that the local authority was wrong to delay four months of payments - around £3000.
The council took the case to the Court of Session, which yesterday heard claims that Prof Brown had failed to understand properly the legislation which introduced free personal care when carrying out her investigation.
But Billy McLachlan, 61, accused the council of "invasion of privacy" and of wasting thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in pursuing the matter in court.
He also claimed the Scottish Executive was guilty of "dereliction of duty" for failing to introduce a more efficient way of ensuring that every council had enough money to implement its flagship policy.
Addressing Lord Macphail, Mr McLachlan informed the court that his father had died on April 4 - a month after the case was first heard in court and a year after the council started paying for his personal care. He said that the way free personal care is funded should be changed to ensure no councils are short of money.
At the moment, councils have to find the money from the block grant they receive from the Scottish Executive.
Mr McLachlan said that instead, councils should work out how much they need to implement the policy and send the executive a bill.
"It's a simple, fast and efficient solution and we're entitled to ask why it hasn't been done," he told the court. "I consider it a dereliction of duty that it hasn't been done."
In her report, Prof Brown said that under the Community Care and Health Scotland Act 2002, which introduced free personal care, councils were obliged to provide payments. She also said that although councils could use waiting lists for some services, they could not use them for free personal care.
Her ruling raised hopes that free care waiting lists would end, but the Court of Session has heard that her findings are not legally binding.
David Johnstone, QC, counsel for the council, yesterday said the reasoning behind the ombudsman's decision was "flawed" because she had not properly understood the law.
He said: "Where there has been a manifest lack of rigour, the court should make it clear that the report lacks authority.
"In a case such as this, where everyone recognises that the findings go beyond the particular complainer and are capable of effecting a larger number of people and local authorities, it's particularly important that they should be based on a proper understanding of the law."
Lord Macphail is expected to make public his findings in around four weeks.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article