Adult Social Care and Health

Located within the North London Business Park, Barnet's Adult Social Care and Health service operates as a crucial statutory body, tasked with providing support to some of the borough's most vulnerable residents. Its official mandate is broad and vital, offering information, advice, and direct support to older people, individuals with physical or sensory impairments, learning disabilities, and mental health needs. This service is, in essence, the safety net for those who require assistance to live safely and independently. However, the experiences of service users, as documented in public reviews, paint a deeply troubling and contradictory picture, resulting in a starkly low overall rating of 1.9 stars. This suggests a significant gap between the service's intended purpose and its actual delivery.

Communication and Responsiveness: A System Under Strain

A recurring and critical theme emerging from user feedback is the profound difficulty in communication. One of the most alarming accounts details a wait of over half an hour on the phone for what was described as an emergency. In the context of adult social care, where delays can have severe consequences for an individual's health and safety, such a wait time is unacceptable. This experience is compounded by another user's testimony of having to "constantly chase" for responses and a specific staff member failing to return calls, which they labelled as "totally unprofessional."

This pattern of unresponsiveness suggests a system struggling with its caseload or one with inadequate internal communication protocols. For individuals and families already in distress, being unable to reach their designated contact or facing long delays for urgent matters erodes trust and exacerbates anxiety. The service operates on a standard Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM schedule. While typical for an administrative office, this framework may not adequately serve the needs of vulnerable adults whose crises do not adhere to a business timetable. The feedback points towards a service that is not just slow, but one that leaves its users feeling ignored and unsupported at critical moments.

Staff Performance: From Exemplary to Alarming

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the feedback is the sheer disparity in experiences with staff. On one end of the spectrum is a glowing review, albeit a number of years old, praising a staff member named Saher for being "pleasant, informative and thoroughly persistent." The reviewer highlights her professional attitude and excellent customer service, which ultimately led to a successful outcome. This demonstrates that there are dedicated and effective professionals within the Barnet Council service who are capable of providing high-quality support.

Unfortunately, this positive account is an outlier, overshadowed by multiple, deeply concerning complaints against other staff members. The reviews contain specific and serious allegations that go far beyond poor customer service. One user accuses a case worker, Toby Cohen, of dishonesty and alleges that he arranged for benefits to be paid directly to himself, effectively accusing the service and its employee of stealing from a vulnerable client. Another complaint names a different staff member, Christine Hart, for a lack of professionalism. These are not minor grievances; they are grave accusations that raise serious questions about vetting, oversight, and safeguarding procedures within the organisation. When the very individuals tasked with protecting vulnerable adults are accused of exploiting them, it points to a potential systemic failure of accountability.

Outcomes and Efficacy: Is the System Working?

Beyond communication issues and staff conduct, a fundamental question is whether the service achieves positive outcomes for its users. One of the most damning pieces of feedback comes from a user whose complaint against the service was formally upheld, yet they claim they still received no help. They described the situation as "absolutely mind blowing" and "disgusting," stating their intention to escalate the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. This experience is particularly troubling as it suggests that even when the service's own complaints procedure identifies a failure, there may be no effective mechanism to rectify the situation and provide the required support.

This aligns with the sentiment from another review stating simply, "They don't do anything useful!" When a complaints process fails to lead to a resolution, it becomes a purely administrative exercise, leaving the service user in the same, or worse, position. It indicates a potential disconnect between acknowledging a problem and being capable of, or willing to, implement a solution. For potential clients, this is a major red flag, suggesting that navigating the system to a successful conclusion could be an arduous and potentially fruitless endeavour.

Navigating Barnet's Adult Social Care

Given the mixed and often negative reports, individuals who need to engage with this service should do so with a degree of caution and preparedness. The following points may be helpful:

• Document Everything: Keep a detailed log of every phone call, email, and meeting. Note the date, time, the name of the person you spoke with, and a summary of the conversation. This record is invaluable if you need to make a formal complaint.
• Be Persistent: The feedback suggests that chasing for responses may be necessary. Do not assume a lack of reply means the issue is being handled. Regular, polite follow-ups are advisable.
• Know Your Rights: Understand the kind of social care support you or your loved one may be entitled to. Organisations like Age UK and local advocacy groups can provide independent advice.
• Escalate When Necessary: If you are not satisfied with the service or the outcome of a complaint, do not hesitate to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. It is an independent body that investigates complaints about councils and adult social care providers.

Barnet's Adult Social Care and Health service is mandated to perform an essential function. Recent assessments by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in early 2025 did rate the authority as 'good' overall, praising its reablement services that help people remain at home after hospital discharge. However, this official assessment contrasts sharply with the lived experiences detailed in user reviews over several years. These reviews highlight chronic communication failures, inconsistent service, and extremely serious allegations of staff misconduct. While pockets of excellence clearly exist, the overwhelming weight of direct user feedback points to a service that is frequently failing the very people it is designed to protect. The low rating is a reflection of significant, unresolved issues that demand attention and systemic change to restore public confidence.