Client Stories  

Suzanne lives with 24-hour support, and by the time Spot Advocacy got involved, her care act review was long overdue due to no advocacy provider being willing to take on an out-of-area client.

The review itself was largely straightforward. Suzanne was comfortable with her care arrangements and her staff. But two things stood out.

Suzanne had lost her long-term partner six months earlier and had received no professional support to process her grief. And Suzanne, whose phone was, in her own words, her life, had been sharing personal information, including her location, with strangers online.

Suzanne’s advocate flagged both. A psychologist referral was made, the LD nursing team stepped in to provide interim support, and the social worker agreed to complete capacity work around online safety — crucially, with proper preparation time so Suzanne could be given relevant information in an accessible way before any assessment took place.

Two months later, Suzanne was found to lack capacity around online safety. The best interest meeting that followed offered two options: no support at all, or full restrictions and monitoring.

Suzanne’s advocate pushed back. Suzanne's phone wasn't just entertainment — it was friendship, connection, and joy. Incidents had been infrequent and minor. Suzanne already came to staff when she felt scared. Heavy restrictions would be neither proportionate nor lawful.

Suzanne’s advocate proposed a third option: regular check-ins with staff, disabling location services, a logged review process, and an ongoing programme of online safety education using workshops, informal chats, online resources and video content. Article 8 rights and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as protected by article 1 protocol 1 were raised directly.

The result: Suzanne kept her phone, kept her independence, and gained real support — from a psychologist, her nursing team, and staff equipped to help her stay safe online.

Sara was in a respite placement far from home, and while her family were very involved, she was showing signs of distress when talking about possible future placements — telling different people what she thought they wanted to hear. Sara’s social worker referred her to Spot for a bespoke piece of work.

Sara's advocate quickly noticed that Sara responded better to creative activities than conversation, so sessions became hands-on: drawing, collage, and eventually Talking Mats using personalised cards with photos, emojis, and things Sara loved (and loathed). Gradually, a genuine picture of her wishes emerged — one she'd arrived at in a relaxed, imaginative way rather than under pressure.

Photos of their work, alongside the advocate's report, were shared with Sara's social worker — keeping her voice firmly at the centre of the decision-making process.

James was objecting to being in the nursing home where he lived. He wanted to go home to his wife. Professionals said he couldn't manage. James and his wife said he could. Nobody was listening to each other.

By the time Spot Advocacy was appointed as James' RPR, communication had broken down completely. His wife, overwhelmed by a sudden flood of unfamiliar professionals making intrusive assessments, had reached breaking point and James’ voice was unheard.

James' advocate built trust where others hadn't. James' solicitor, working with the Official Solicitor, asked the advocate to accompany James and his wife on community outings and provide an independent witness statement for the court. What the advocate observed mattered: James' needs were higher than he and his wife acknowledged, but lower than professionals had assessed. His reluctance to engage had distorted the picture on both sides.

James' advocate supported James and his wife through the entire court process, explaining what was happening, ensuring they could participate fully, and attending court alongside them. The advocate also helped broker a communication plan between his wife and the care team.

The outcome: James remained in 24-hour nursing care, but moved to a home closer to his wife, with a clear plan to rebuild that relationship.

Jointly funded by the local authority and legal aid, this case showed what independent advocacy can do when communication has failed, cutting through the noise and putting the person back at the centre.

When Lev was referred to Spot for a Rule 1.2 Representative, having just moved out of area. He was regularly running away from his placement, subject to highly restrictive support, including 3-to-1 supervision in the community and was reported as being selectively non-verbal.

Lev's advocate did not push him. Early visits were spent simply playing games together — ones Lev made sure to win. In time, he began typing responses to her questions on her laptop, and slowly started opening up about his placement, what wasn't working, and why it was making him want to run away.

By building trust at Lev's pace, his advocate eventually heard his voice — literally. He began speaking with her verbally, sharing enough that she was able to request a review of his capacity and care act assessments. The result was significant: his restrictions were much less restrictive, and he is now supported 1-to-1 in the community, with a move to supported living on the horizon.