A Hornchurch man is fighting for justice for his parents after the family spent almost £225,000 of savings on care home costs following an "easily-corrected mistake" by the NHS.
Mark Devitt is one of thousands across the country who has experienced first-hand the difficulties navigating the social care system and the stress of finding - and funding - suitable care for relatives.
His mum Patricia was diagnosed with dementia in 2014 and was looked after at home by husband Joe until he was diagnosed with the same degenerative disease four years later.
During the pandemic, Mark and his two brothers took the difficult decision to move both parents into care as they could no longer look after them in their homes.
Joe died suddenly in December 2020 after contracting Covid and developing a blood clot.
The following year, Patricia had an initial screening assessment, known as the Checklist, for NHS continuing health care (CHC) - a package of health and social care provided outside hospital and funded by the NHS.
The Recorder has seen Patricia's Checklist, which says that despite meeting the criteria of need to pass onto the next stage of the process - a full multi-disciplinary team assessment - the outcome circled at the end was "no referral for full assessment [...] is necessary".
This prevented Patricia from gaining access to the full assessment she was entitled to, which could have qualified her for free NHS care if she was then found eligible.
Mark said: "We ended up spending over £223,000 on care costs for my mother on the back of this easily corrected administrative mistake.
"What makes it so galling is that my mum and dad married in 1957 aged 18 and 19, worked really hard throughout their lives to own their own house, give their kids a lovely upbringing and save a bit of cash for their retirement.
"They were terrific, generous people, who did everything they possibly could for their family."
He said they lost a significant portion of their savings "on the back of a clerical error by someone who should’ve known a lot better".
Subsequent reviews of her care needs did not pick up on substantial deterioration as time went on, Mark claimed.
Patricia was a hairdresser and Joe was a professional boxer in the 1960s before later working as a taxi driver.
Mark said they "never had a day out of work or claimed benefits throughout their lives".
Mark said the error on Patricia's Checklist only came to his attention years later, when a copy of his mum's documentation was provided by the NHS after he made enquiries.
Patricia died in November 2024, and Mark is now seeking a review of the case and putting in a claim for retrospective payment.
A decision has yet to be made on the complaint.
James Urquhart-Burton, head of CHC Claims at Winston Solicitors and representing the Devitt family, called their case "absolutely bewildering".
Mr Urquhart-Burton said: "You only need to glance at the initial screening report to see that Patricia should have gone on to receive a full eligibility assessment by a multi-disciplinary team.
"The fact that she never received a full assessment then or in years leading up to her passing, despite clear evidence that she deteriorated further, is clear evidence of systemic failure.
"The whole prolonged episode has caused a huge amount of distress for the family during a time that has seen both Joe and Patricia pass – with half of their financial legacy ripped away as a result."
A spokesperson for NHS North East London said: "We do not comment on individual cases.
"However, eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC) is subject to national guidance.
"Decisions in each case are based on assessments carried out by trained professionals using a legally defined process and are based on a person's assessed needs, not their diagnosis or financial situation.
"We appreciate that continuing healthcare decisions can be significant for individuals and families, especially in complex and sensitive circumstances, with outcomes potentially causing some disappointment and distress.
"Where concerns are raised about an eligibility decision, there is an established review process to ensure cases are considered appropriately and in line with the national guidance.
"We are always happy to review a case if new evidence comes to light."
Share