At a Glance
- A Southend family faced an 11-month wait for a dementia care reassessment.
- Care needs increased significantly during the delay, but funding did not keep pace.
- Failures in the council’s direct payment system caused unpaid carers and tax issues following a provider’s collapse.
- The family warns of fears that asking for help might lead to reduced support.
- The case raises serious questions about safeguarding vulnerable residents and timely care reassessments.
One Southend Family’s Experience
A Southend family has shared its experience of Adult Social Care with the Oracle. Their story raises important questions needing answers, highlighting issues that could protect other vulnerable residents.
Imagine caring for a loved one with dementia whose health worsens, yet they are placed on a waiting list for reassessment with no indication of how long it might be. This is the reality one Southend family faced.
Care Needs Increase During Long Wait
Their elderly relative has dementia, effects of a stroke, visual and hearing impairments, and other long-term health conditions. The family first contacted Southend-on-Sea City Council in August 2025, explaining that her care needs had increased.
The reassessment did not take place until 20 July 2026, about 11 months later. However, care needs do not halt during waits.
During this period, the amount of care increased from approximately 33 hours per week to about 42 hours, alongside around 14 hours of unpaid care by relatives. Nevertheless, the Direct Payment funding remained at the lower level.
The family says that when carers’ wages became due at the end of July 2026, there was insufficient funding to pay them despite the care having already been provided. Carers were left unpaid, forcing some to rely on overdrafts and credit cards while the funding issue was resolved.
The council later increased the Direct Payment to 42 hours weekly and made a one-off payment to cover the immediate shortfall, resolving the immediate payroll crisis. Yet the wider question remains: why should a vulnerable person’s care needs be allowed to increase for nearly a year before funding catches up?
Failures Beyond Care Assessment
The family also experienced serious problems after the collapse of Vibrance, the organisation previously commissioned to provide Direct Payment support and payroll services.
Following Vibrance’s administration, they discovered that money owed to HM Revenue and Customs had not been paid. Despite a council-funded organisation managing payroll, the vulnerable woman was legally regarded as the employer and faced debt collection demands in her name.
This was a frightening and confusing situation for someone living with dementia, who could not independently investigate missing tax payments or understand the demands. Her family had to attempt to resolve an issue they believed arose from failures in the payroll service they relied on.
The consequences extended beyond this family. Southend-on-Sea City Council’s financial records show £1.26 million in additional Adult Social Care costs following Vibrance’s failure, incurred to maintain care continuity. Although the council has since implemented new arrangements for Direct Payment support, the experience raises important questions about the safeguards protecting vulnerable people when organisations managing care payments fail.
Fear of Asking for Help
One of the family’s most troubling concerns was the response when they first requested additional help. They say that when they reported increased health and care needs, it was suggested that her existing care could be reviewed and possibly reduced.
The family insists they were requesting more support, not less. For those already struggling to cope with a vulnerable relative’s deterioration, such suggestions create a troubling dilemma.
If asking for help risks losing existing support, families might hesitate to request reassessment when it is genuinely needed. The family believes no one should face that choice.
Care Cannot Be Put on Hold
During the long wait, the relative’s health deteriorated further. Her GP documented serious respiratory concerns and recommended an air purifier to protect her from dust and fumes from nearby construction.
Adult Social Care would not allow the purchase of the purifier from Direct Payment funds, so the family paid for it privately.
This is especially significant because a September 2025 council financial assessment found the woman’s income was below the Minimum Income Guarantee once disability-related expenses were considered. Despite this, she had to meet additional health and disability costs herself. Other equipment and adaptations were also funded privately.
Questions Over Care Delays
This family’s experience raises serious questions for Southend. How long should a vulnerable person wait for reassessment when their needs clearly increase? What happens to funding when carers already provide additional support while waiting?
How are carers protected from being left unpaid after providing essential care? What safeguards exist when council-funded organisations managing payroll and tax liabilities fail? Should anyone fear asking for reassessment because they worry existing support might be reduced?
Direct Payments are intended to give people more choice and control over their care, which is crucial. However, this must be accompanied by proper safeguards, reliable administration, and responsive support when needs change.
A Call for Systemic Change
The immediate financial crisis for this family has now been resolved, but they continue to seek answers about the period when additional care was required but the system had not yet responded.
Their case should not be viewed in isolation. If lessons are learned, perhaps the next vulnerable resident asking Southend for help will find the system responding before a crisis arises, not after.