Jennyfer Spencer: Camden New Journal investigation exposes Town Hall failures

Published: 15 April 2010
by TOM FOOT

A NEW Journal investigation has revealed how the council failed to meet the needs of Jennyfer Spencer, the stroke victim who was confined to a wheelchair and died alone in her fifth floor council flat.

Ms Spencer – who was rated as the 15th highest risk tenant on the council’s waiting list of more than 17,000 – was found dead in the inaccessible and unadapted flat on the Waxham estate, Gospel Oak, last month.

Only after a note addressed to the New Journal written by the 46-year-old was found in her flat, pleading for somebody to take notice, has the full scale of her desperate struggle to be rehoused become apparent.

This week,  the New Journal has seen letters that revealed how she contacted lawyers about her care, her rapidly deteriorating health and her search for a decent home.

In December 2008, Ms Spencer wrote: “The body has developed many life threatening issues: two vessels in my brain are almost ready to explode and I suffer major ‘shutdowns’ which consist of partial or full paralysis ... on and off for 10/15 hours at a time. Episodes happen any place, any time. I am at my wits end, continually collapsing, no memory, waking with my hair on fire and internal bruising on my ribs.”

She added: “The fight with social services and the housing department is my priority”.

Last night the New Journal was invited to the Town Hall to meet care and health bosses to discuss the circumstances surrounding her death.

They said they stand by their claim that Ms Spencer was offered six flats over a period of four years since applying for a transfer in 2004, the years after she suffered a triple brain haemorrhage that rendered her part-paralysed.

Our investigation has established that she refused three of them because they were too small and two because they were on the fifth and sixth floor. She refused to see one flat in Cricklewood that would not have been easy for her to get to.

The offers – spread over three years and on one occasion with a 20-month gap – were  described by Ms Spencer’s carer in a letter of complaint as flats “up to two times smaller than Ms Spencer’s present living arrangements”.

Camden’s housing director Jim Wintour said: “We offered her the best that we had. In an ideal world, we’d have more properties, bigger rooms. I don’t think we have any properties [in Camden] with rooms as big as she has and on the ground floor with disabled access. Given the resources we had, she got the offers. Those 1960s blocks like Waxham have large rooms. There is often a gap between the expectation and the resources.”

Ms Spencer, known locally as “Alex” and recognisable by her eye patch, also saw her care package changed – her friends say for the worse.

She was in receipt of care payments, where those in “substantial” need are given monthly allowances of up to £2,000 to fund their own care, since 2003.

But the council stopped them because she did not appear to be spending them correctly. She had not provided the council with the proper paperwork, the Town Hall claims. 

Jo Pethybridge, head of community services at Camden Reach, based at the Peckwater Centre, said: “It is important to us that we are able to demonstrate that the payments are actually being properly accounted for.”

But Pamela Jones, associate director of GP and Hospital Support at NHS Camden, said: “The direct payments system does need better regulation. It is open to abuse – there is a whole issue of adult abuse that needs to be addressed.”

A police investigation into withdrawals from Ms Spencer’s bank account is ongoing. Her death has been confirmed as non suspicious.

At an assessment meeting in August 2008, a decision was taken to send agency carers to her home.

New Journal enquiries have found at that time social workers at the Peckwater Centre had an average caseload of 36 “clients” and 18 ongoing care assessment reviews.

A report to the Camden Primary Care Trust in 2009 reveals how social workers were under intense pressure – mainly due to a huge rise in early hospital discharges – and that “regular meetings had been set up to address concerns related to customer service delivery and risks in performance.”

In her letter to the Peckwater Centre, Ms Spencer’s carer warned her condition would worsen, adding: “You have left Ms Spencer in this intolerable situation without communication or contact.”

Agency carers coming to her home after her payments were stopped were “refused entry”, according to Mr Wintour. “We [the council] went round to her house continually for four weeks before we gave up,” he added. 

When asked whether Ms Spencer might have refused agency carers entry because they were unknown to her, Ms  Jones said: “I think you might be right. If she had these strangers coming she might have felt uncomfortable. I’d have a lot of sympathy with that.”

However, in April 2009 the council cut its ties with Ms Spencer after a joint decision by social workers and the team leader at the Peckwater Centre. 

The decision was tested with legal advice by council lawyers, officials said yesterday.

Ms Jones said: “I feel that the service persevered for quite a while. The team were really so disappointed – they wanted to get hold of the situation. A lot of the social workers involved are really disappointed not to be able to crack it.”

Neil Coyle, director of policy at the charity Disability Alliance UK, said: “There is a legal obligation on councils when they have assessed someone as having needs to provide the support to meet those needs. 

“Clearly, the contact from the council demonstrates that a) the council knew Jennyfer had needs; b) the council knew her needs were not being met. To allow Jennyfer to live without support appears to have contributed to her death.”

Mr Wintour said if “we are to blame then I am responsible and I won’t shy away from that,” adding: “We will look at the internal review and then we will look at a broader review. We will want to learn from this. If we decide we need to have a safeguarding review it will be published. We might with this one partly because of all the press interest.”

See Comment