Blog Image

The Romiley Gazette

Essex Parent Challenges Council Over Hospital Neglect Safeguarding Duties.

Essex County Council, Parents of disabled children Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Mon, September 22, 2025 07:45

22nd September 2025

An Essex parent has formally challenged Essex County Council over what they say is a “systemic failure” to recognise hospital-based neglect as a safeguarding issue.

The parent, whose two children have complex medical needs, alleges that local safeguarding processes are being wrongly limited to concerns about parenting or home circumstances – leaving children unprotected when harm arises from hospital care.

“The law is clear,” the parent said. “Section 47 of the Children Act requires a safeguarding enquiry whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. It does not limit that duty to parenting issues. Neglect can also occur within institutions – including hospitals.”

The parent points to Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018), which explicitly includes “institutional or systemic neglect” as a potential trigger for a Section 47 enquiry.

In this case, hospital records reportedly show repeated failures, including concealed abnormal results, failure to investigate faltering growth, unaddressed bradycardia and zinc deficiency, and an unperformed biopsy for Hirschsprung’s disease.

Despite this evidence, the parent claims the council has “minimised institutional harm” by categorising these as “health complaints” rather than safeguarding concerns – meaning no formal multi-agency Section 47 enquiry has been convened.

Concerns Over Disability Assessments

The challenge also highlights concerns about disability assessments. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, disabled children are automatically defined as “children in need” and entitled to specialist assessment.

“Essex is relying on a generic Common Assessment Framework (CAF), which is not designed for disabled children,” the parent argues. “The Ombudsman has ruled several times that councils must conduct proper disability assessments – this is a legal duty.”

Calls for Action

Before taking part in any further meetings, the parent has asked the council to provide:

  • Written confirmation that hospital neglect is recognised as a safeguarding trigger.
  • Details of how their children’s cases will be escalated to multi-agency safeguarding meetings, with hospital safeguarding teams involved.
  • Confirmation that statutory disability assessments will be provided under Section 17.
  • Agreement that they may be accompanied by an independent advocate, funded by the council, in line with the Children Act complaints procedure.

The parent also stresses that, under the Care Act, they are entitled to an advocate whether or not they are making a formal complaint. They argue that this should be considered a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, as they have a diagnosis of ADHD and are likely to become anxious or overwhelmed if upset by comments. They also report difficulty processing and retaining all information in meetings without either having them recorded or an advocate present.

The parent says that without these steps, the council’s current approach is “procedurally unsafe and contrary to statutory guidance.”

Essex County Council has been approached for comment.



Parent Raises Alarm Over Safeguarding Failures in Ongoing CAF Assessment

Essex County Council Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Tue, September 16, 2025 01:18

16th September 2025

An Essex parent has raised urgent concerns about the handling of a Child and Family (CAF) assessment involving her two daughters, alleging that critical medical information has been ignored or withheld, putting the children at risk.

The mother — who asked to remain anonymous — says she has repeatedly reported serious health issues to local authorities, including hospital admissions and abnormal test results, but claims Essex social care has failed to escalate the case to a statutory child protection enquiry under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.

“We have been raising red-flag concerns for months,” she told the Gazette. “Despite two hospitalisations and documented medical neglect acknowledged at NHS Chief Executive level, the council continues with a generic CAF assessment rather than the appropriate statutory process.”

Medical Concerns Ignored

One child has reportedly been hospitalised and discharged twice during the CAF process with unresolved issues including bradycardia (low heart rate), hypoxia, faltering growth, and repeated impaction. These are considered key safeguarding indicators in NICE guidance.

The mother says that omissions in her child’s medical records were later acknowledged by the hospital trust’s Chief Executive following a Subject Access Request

Failure to Escalate

Under statutory guidance, a CAF assessment must be completed within 45 working days, and serious health risks should trigger a Section 47 child protection enquiry. The mother argues that Essex has breached its duties under Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) by failing to escalate the case.

She further alleges that when she requested an advocate — a right under the Care Act 2014 and Equality Act 2010 — a scheduled meeting was cancelled rather than reasonable adjustments being made.

Call for Action

In a formal escalation, the parent has requested written confirmation of:

· Why no safeguarding referral was made concerning withheld clinical results and hospital neglect.

· How the local authority will address risks to vaccination safety and ongoing medical care.

· Why statutory procedures under Section 17 and Section 47 have not been initiated.

· Funding for an independent advocate at future meetings.

She has warned that if no satisfactory response is provided, she will escalate the matter to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, Ofsted, and the Department for Education.



Continuity of Care Lost as Family Struggles to Access NHS GP.

Essex County Council, National News Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sun, September 07, 2025 09:56

7th September 2025

A parent has spoken out about their frustration with their local NHS GP practice, saying they felt “dismissed and unsupported” when trying to access care for their children.

They explained that although vitamin D tablets were eventually prescribed, this only happened after repeat blood test results came back. According to the parent, the GP’s clinic notes wrongly stated that they had requested the blood test themselves — despite the fact they had already arrived with a full report and recent blood results from a private source.

“I didn’t go in asking for more tests,” the parent said. “I already had the full results and plan. What I needed was for the NHS GP to act on them.”

The parent added that the private GP who reviewed the results onsite has since recognised the clinical links across the findings and actioned urgent referrals to various specialists — in contrast to the NHS GP, who focused only on the vitamin D result and, in their view, ignored the wider picture.

The situation escalated when, despite requesting not to have further contact with the same NHS GP, the parent was called by him again. During the phone conversation, when the parent asked to see a specific doctor for their daughter — who has an extremely rare and complex condition — the GP reportedly replied that another request could be made, “but she would see us next year.”

The parent described ending the call abruptly, saying the GP appeared uninterested in helping and aware of their previous complaint. The interaction left them upset and unsettled for the rest of the day. Within hours, they were contacted by school to collect their unwell daughter and once again had to arrange a private GP appointment to move care forward.

Adding to their distress, the family were previously registered with a GP they described as “fantastic,” who knew their children’s medical histories and had built a trusted relationship — something particularly important for their autistic children, who value consistency. However, after moving a short distance, they were told they could no longer stay with that practice, even though it was only a ten-minute drive from their new home. The parent argues this goes against NHS guidelines which suggest patients should be able to choose their GP if travel is reasonable.

The family say they have now been left with little choice but to rely on private care, despite their wish to remain within the NHS.



Worried Parent Turns to Private GP After Concerns Over NHS Care.

Essex County Council, National News Posted by Sheila OliverPosted on Sun, September 07, 2025 09:19

7th September 2025

An Essex mum has turned to private healthcare after struggling to get answers from their local NHS GP practice over a series of ongoing medical concerns affecting two of her children.

The parent, who asked not to be named, told the Gazette they felt left with “no option but to seek private care” after repeated delays, missed follow-ups, and what they describe as a lack of joined-up responses between specialists and their GP.

For one child, recent blood tests reportedly showed:

  • Prolactin levels double the expected range, with a private specialist advising retesting and examination if the abnormality persisted.
  • Thyroid irregularities and very low vitamin D levels (measured at 19).

Despite this, the parent says the NHS GP only agreed to recheck vitamin D levels and did not prescribe supplements — raising fears of conditions such as rickets being overlooked.

The second child, already under investigation for an immune system abnormality, was said to have had a dermatologist referral prioritised instead of more urgent issues flagged by specialists. The mum claims a new rash reaction, after steroid cream was used, was not reviewed, and that requests for an examination were dismissed.

The parent added that during the same consultation, the GP unexpectedly raised the subject of physical chastisement, which they described as “deeply uncomfortable and inappropriate.”

Frustrated, the family sought advice privately. They now worry their experience is part of a wider issue of NHS commissioning pressures.

“I am passionate about the NHS offering equitable care to all,” the parent said. “But I am aware of the financial restraints being placed on local commissioners. I’m willing to share information and look at where savings can be made — but patients should not be left without proper follow-up or treatment because of cuts.”

Campaigners have long warned that cost-saving measures at Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Integrated Care Board (ICB) level can lead to rationing of services, meaning conditions are left unchecked until families either go private or escalate complaints.

This distraught mum  hopes their experience will encourage others to come forward, and call for greater transparency in how NHS resources are prioritised.