Carer’s response and further complaint to Ms Irene Mungall Chair UCI re failure to get written permission from a vulnerable adult

Dear Ms. Mungall,   I am writing to you because I am very concerned about your response to this entire matter with respect to the rights of vulnerable adults and their parents/carers.  As a charity, UCI have responsibilities to those they profess to work on behalf of, in this case, users and carers.  As a carer myself, I am appalled beyond words at the behaviour of yourself and your colleagues in response to what is a very serious charge.  “Alleged” unauthorised photo?  You heard directly from the family that it had not been authorised and yet you used it in your literature and as far as we know are still distributing it.  Are you indeed in the business of interfering with the legal rights of vulnerable adults and those who have legal powers on their behalf?  Everything I have seen in the course of this whole sorry saga says that is exactly what has happened here.  There is no doubt that users and carers in Dumfries and Galloway are in dire need of a champion charity to put their needs top of mind in an uncertain budgetary environment.  What you seem to be doing with your organisation is perverting the intent of your own charter.  Is that how charities are run nowadays?  Because I can assure you, I would not come within a country mile of your organisation if I found myself in need of help, advice or support, and I would tell everyone I know (and I know quite a few people who would potentially be served by your “charity”) to steer clear of you.   

If you are indeed partly funded by DG Council, then I am doubly offended.  The public purse – my tax contributions – are funding your folly.  More’s the pity…but rest assured that I have my own complaint procedure which I will be pursuing on that front.   

Make no mistake, many many people are watching this situation and the way you have handled it, and I truly believe your organisation’s reputation will suffer badly in the long run.  You still have time to redeem the situation, make apologies, withdraw the offending documents and provide proof of your corrected actions.  I urge you to do the right thing and not be a victim of your own hubris.  Focus on your charter, not your ego.  Admit that a mistake was made and make things right.  You may not like how it feels now, but it will serve you and your organisation much better than what you have done up to now.

For the purposes of your process, you can consider this an official complaint against U.C.I.    Named Carer of DGPPG

Reply to ‘Named carer’ re UCI “blatently (sic) dishonest” and request for Elected Members to investigate and act

To named carer & IM at UCI, cc OSCR, DGPPG, media, Care Commission, SWIA, CIC, P Nolan+Judex Paul+John Alexander+Heather Collington D&G Council+Cllrs: John Dougan+Patsy Gilroy+Ivor Hyslop+Denis Male+Ronnie Nicholson+Rob Davidson+Andrew Wood+Peter Duncan+Ian Blake

Note on Copy OSCR FAO Investigation Officers - Jan Bruce further complaint re: UCI  SC 031853   

Note: Elected Members please note the detail and the explicit request for your investigation and action.

Dear named carer.  Your email to Ms Mungall Chair UCI (and also Chief Executive of Dumfries CAS/CAB) yesterday 30/4 at 20:36 very accurately describes what is going on and we support all you write.  No doubt others involved and caught up in what you rightly say results from hubris, inflated egos and lack of proper accountability will also agree and say so, in due course.  

All should note that Mr Judex Paul, the D&G Council SW Complaints Manager, who clearly stated in person at a meeting on 21/4 that he is a qualified Social Worker and lawyer, also then clearly said, as confirmed by Mrs H Collington, Acting Senior Social Worker, that UCI require WRITTEN PERMISSION to take let alone publish a photograph of a vulnerable learning disabled adult.  UCI do not have that permission and never sought it.  When the properly appointed welfare attorneys, as known to COC, first complained by telephone to UCI around 12 April and requested withdrawal, they were clearly told by UCI that the CIC Manager had given all necessary permission, which it is understood CIC flatly deny.  

These failures by UCI to follow their stated objects and failures of due process are creating disputes that OSCR should find as “good reasons to believe that the dispute is putting charity assets at risk or endangering the charity’s ability to meet its charitable objects”.  Also UCI is not reporting as OSCR require and not providing information on request, ref email 21 Dec 2009, as it is obliged to do.  Please will OSCR add this clarification to our outstanding complaint, now under investigation.  

You may wish to support this as another individual.  E: info@oscr.org.uk   

Concerning your 2^nd paragraph there is no doubt about funding.  You will find that in the smallest of print ‘hidden away’ at the foot of page 4 of the offensive ‘blacked out’ UCI Annual Report 2009, but improperly set apart from the Financial Report and under a distracting large red banner with the Contact details, is the following statement, here reproduced in large print:  

UCI is funded primarily by NHS/LA in Dumfries and Galloway

We will formally ask Elected Members to investigate and review this UCI funding, how it is approved and whether it provides ‘Best Value’, given that the Council has a big budget shortfall and is cutting actual front line services with a directly negative impact upon the disabled.  UCI appears to represent up to £100,000 of public funds, which we say should now be fully justified.

So there is no doubt of the ‘piper’, who must implicitly if not explicitly, call the tune.  This type of arrangement appears to carry great risks of degenerating into the situation that we now witness, especially as the D&G Council (and NHS?) commissioning manger Mr Paul Nolan responsible for funding UCI like ‘Pontius Pilate’ appears to wash his hands of the matter.  See attached PN emails Frid 23/4 concerning the serious complaints.   

This will not do, because there is no doubt where de facto control lies.  UCI is not an independent volunteer ‘charity’, but a £100,000+ company, a commercial activity or small business with charity status, “primarily funded by NHS/LA”.  This is not an ‘arms length’ activity.  Look at: http://www.oscr.org.uk/CharityIndexDetails.aspx?id=SC031853 and you will see OSCR report Charity SC 031853 (UCI) as “Constitutional Form – Company”  

OSCR also states:  “OSCR does not keep a register of Scottish Charity Trustees. This is not one of our statutory functions or something that we are resourced to do. Information about Scottish Charities should be available from the trustees’ report of the charity’s annual accounts. Please contact the charity directly using the above search to find this information.”. We have so asked and failed to get the information from UCI.

Note the Annual Report does not list the Trustees, misquotes their Scottish Charity No. and has an incomprehensible Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account, which appears to present the wrong figures.  This is despite spending £1,002 of public money on “Accountancy fees”.  I shall write separately about the financial report to explain this.  To avoid doubt, I am not now suggesting or implying any financial impropriety, because UCI has failed to send their accounts necessary for a detailed study, but highlighting lack of understanding and basic competence in presenting the necessary information in the correct format that is comprehensible.  In short the figures do not add up, see attached scanned image of page 4 and look at the two tables. 

As but one point of detail how do “Net current assets £44,890” transform to “Net assets and Total Funds £35,386” when Liabilities (Creditors) only appear to be (£601)?  Also the P&L as presented is not comprehensible.  As a point of information please will UCI tell all of us what “Sessional Fees of £18,619” comprise, bearing in mind this category of spend, primarily of our cash, is second only to £53,252 for Wages and NI?    

 This Annual Report 2009 with the unauthorised photograph blacked out in felt tip and an apparently inadequate Financial Report with no Trustees listed etc. etc., should be withdrawn forthwith, whilst the wasted costs for all this should not be paid for with our cash, being denied to the disabled through budget cuts.  Why is all this not being properly scrutinised by those responsible in the Council and how much other waste of this sort is going on, hidden behind the scenes.  As we provide the taxes we have a right to ask Elected Members carry out their duty to represent us and hold officers properly to account.  Please will they now do so.   

The misleading Financial Report appears to be yet another manifestation of the systemic UCI failures that cause serious failures, like not seeking or obtaining the necessary informed written permission on behalf of a learning disabled vulnerable adult before taking and publishing unauthorised photographs, despite being asked in a telephone complaint not to do so, before the fallacious Annual Report was then deliberately distributed.  We have no doubt the self serving officers of UCI will find every possible spin and weasel worded excuses to frustrate any complaint and blame others, like CIC.  Do you wish to comment further on this latest information?  Mr & Mrs B

On Fri, 30/4/10, Named carer wrote:  

Dear Ms. Mungall,   I am writing to you because I am very concerned about your response to this entire matter with respect to the rights of vulnerable adults and their parents/carers.  As a charity, UCI have responsibilities to those they profess to work on behalf of, in this case, users and carers.  As a carer myself, I am appalled beyond words at the behaviour of yourself and your colleagues in response to what is a very serious charge.  “Alleged” unauthorised photo?  You heard directly from the family that it had not been authorised and yet you used it in your literature and as far as we know are still distributing it.  Are you indeed in the business of interfering with the legal rights of vulnerable adults and those who have legal powers on their behalf?  Everything I have seen in the course of this whole sorry saga says that is exactly what has happened here.  There is no doubt that users and carers in Dumfries and Galloway are in dire need of a champion charity to put their needs top of mind in an uncertain budgetary environment.  What you seem to be doing with your organisation is perverting the intent of your own charter.  Is that how charities are run nowadays?  Because I can assure you, I would not come within a country mile of your organisation if I found myself in need of help, advice or support, and I would tell everyone I know (and I know quite a few people who would potentially be served by your “charity”) to steer clear of you.

If you are indeed partly funded by DG Council, then I am doubly offended.  The public purse – my tax contributions – are funding your folly.  More’s the pity…but rest assured that I have my own complaint procedure which I will be pursuing on that front.   

Make no mistake, many many people are watching this situation and the way you have handled it, and I truly believe your organisation’s reputation will suffer badly in the long run.  You still have time to redeem the situation, make apologies, withdraw the offending documents and provide proof of your corrected actions.  I urge you to do the right thing and not be a victim of your own hubris.  Focus on your charter, not your ego.  Admit that a mistake was made and make things right.  You may not like how it feels now, but it will serve you and your organisation much better than what you have done up to now.

For the purposes of your process, you can consider this an official complaint against U.C.I.   Named carer/

— On Fri, 30/4/10, userandcarer1@aol.com <userandcarer1@aol.com> wrote:
From: userandcarer1@aol.com <userandcarer1@aol.com>
Subject: Re: UCI complaint upheld letter 28 April delivered by Recorded Delivery today around 13:30
To:
Cc: dgppg@dumfries-galloway.org.uk, various other carers, sgillespie@s-un.co.uk, darchibald@s-un.co.uk, debbie.muir@bbc.co.uk, pamandian@itv.com, info@oscr.org.uk, crobertson@s-un.co.uk, Marcia.Ramsay@carecommission.com, Paul.Nolan@dumgal.gov.uk, Judex.Paul@dumgal.gov.uk, Heather.Smith@c-i-c.co.uk, John.Dougan@dumgal.gov.uk
Date: Friday, 30 April, 2010, 5:10

Dear Mr.B,
I am somewhat surprised by your blatently dishonest email message.   I would like to point out that the complaint that was upheld was yours in relation to a UCI Trustee and not regarding an alleged unauthorised photo.

Please withdraw your email.

I Mungall

“Call Kaye” BBC Radio Scotland Tues 27-April. Information for all carers

Earlier this week on Tuesday 27/4 there was an interesting discussion about learning disability, especially autism & Aspergers.  Radio Scotland ‘Call Kaye’.  If you didn’t catch programme then it’s still on iplayer from the BBC www until Monday.  For program & more details see:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r3zl7    There is a ‘Call Kaye’ FaceBook discussion board and you can read & post comments.  To access follow the link below:

http://www.facebook.com/n/?topic.php&uid=401973844553&topic=15010&post=87659&mid=243b3e6G5af34dc02813G1fc1fG21&n_m=dgppg%40dumfries-galloway.org.uk#post87659

Also today we received  literature requested from RESCARE an English charity est 1984 concerned with the learning disabled.  They used to have a presence in Glasgow & Edinburgh, but apparently that died with the hospital closures some time ago.  Very active in England though and facing same issues re day centers (ARCs) and choice.   Look at www.rescare.org.uk  

We only heard of them recently by chance, but they understand and argue for real ‘Choice’, not ideology. Reading their latest April 2010 Newsletter (Resnews…) with literature just received, we wish we had known of this charity when fighting the closure of Dunmuir Park in 2006 and earlier in 1999/2000. The arguments we put forward, which were ignored by the ‘experts’, are all there with evidence and it’s worth reading.  This is a very useful resource for facts, figures, arguments and ammunition, which will be very necessary in the light of JA’s determination to close the ARCs, to save cash.  

You may wish to contact RESCARE and ask them for a copy of their publications.  If you can get anything on line have a read otherwise get on the circulation list.  Why are we not told of such sources of real support, as compared to Enable Scotland or ‘charities’ like UCI, who are in businesses mainly for their own (self) interests, a point RECSARE make very strongly along with justified criticism of the ideologically driven ‘experts’ who always  ‘know best’.   RESCARE very much argue that one size does not fit all, whether it be residential or day care.  Whilst they are an English focused charity the principles are the same and it’s useful ammunition as a resource.  After all why do we need to rediscover the wheel?    If you think this is helpful and useful then please share all this with other carers and your local ARC groups. 

Please circulate or post details of any other meeting(s) yet proposed by JA at other ARCs re the future closure plans.  We shall be trying to organise a DGPPG meeting in the next 4-6 weeks as the way JA is trying to ignore us and pretend we do not exist cannot be allowed to continue.  We know he wants to divide and rule, but it’s in everyone’s interest not to let that happen.  Anyway he has a statutory to consult when required to do so and the present silly games should be stopped by the Chief Executive.

UCI Uphold complaint

DGPPG has received the following copy email from ‘Mr E’ and UCI letter from the Chair Irene Mungall dated Weds 28 April which says:  “Dear ‘Mr E.’  Re: Complaint regarding behaviour of board member of UCI.  Your complaint regarding the above has been upheld and the matter addressed.  Yours sincerely Irene Mungall  Chair UCI  Scottish Charity SCO 31853″ sic.      

Attention Ms Irene Mungall Chair UCI      Dear Ms Mungall.  I confirm the attached letter was delivered by recorded delivery this afternoon.  Thank you very much.    I am pleased to read that you have upheld my complaint about the action of UCI in relation to the unauthorised photography of a vulnerable adult without necessary written permission and the wide publication of this with his head ‘defaced’ in scribbled black felt tip. 

But unfortunately your letter does not detail the action you have taken, in particular the recall and confirmed destruction of the defaced UCI Annual Report 2009 plus the UCI ‘Audit’ of CIC and the action taken with regard to those responsible. 

Also there is no apology or explanation, which given the circumstances do you agree appears very curmudgeonly?  Indeed your letter is very abbreviated or curt and rather opaque, given the very sensitive subject matter. 

May I also point out and again complain formally that UCI has still not supplied a written copy of your complaints procedure and policy by email, as first requested some weeks ago.  Why has this not been sent long ago?   Also UCI has not corrected the latest dissembling ‘news’ statement on the UCI www site dated 23 April, after your earlier statement was shown to be factually misleading, because complaints had been received by UCI, contrary to what was written.  May we request that UCI either put up the whole truth as ‘news’ or omit any such statement entirely?  Not least because UCI has been unable to supply its written complaints procedure and policy.  Also we again ask why are all Trustees not listed on that site and, as a matter of routine, in your Annual Report?    

Finally concerning your UCI ‘headed paperwork’ as used for this letter.  As was pointed out in a much earlier email, the Scottish Charity No is not SCO 31853, as you wrongly display it.  It is: SC 031853, a six digit number.  A charity concerned with ‘communications’ should get the details correct, because anyone trying to search on the OSC www site will encounter errors trying a five digit number.

Along with Mr & Mrs A I look forward to receiving your further comments and an email copy of the established UCI complaints procedure & policy, confirming when this was first written and published.  As also previously requested please ensure any correspondence is copied to me by email, as we may well not be able to access our post and may not see letters like the attached sent by mail.  Also email is quicker and more reliable.   Many thanks once again.  Mr E. 

It is understood a later addendum requested a reply to the message sent 23 April 2010, including the outstanding email of 21 Dec 2009, posted on that date earlier on this site.  For some inexplicable reason, since UCI is a charity, the Trustees appear reluctant to reply to reasonable requests and questions, including listing those Trustees by name, which is required of all charities. 

That addendum PS said:  

Dear Ms Mungall.  Further to my reply sent today at 15:04 I intended to attach this PS asking you to reply to the requests made in the message written jointly with Mr & Mrs A and sent to you personally on 23/4 at 11:42.  To avoid any doubt we attach a further copy.  To date you have not acknowledged this message, let alone replied to answer any of the questions or implement any of the simple requested actions.  Please will you do so, or ensure as Chair that someone within UCI does so, forthwith.  To avoid any doubt and for your convenience, a further copy is attached    Please ensure any reply is copied by email, without fail.   This of course includes the requested reply to the email explicitly sent to the Trustees on 21 Dec 2009, then being addressed and delivered to five recipients at UCI viz:  ‘carolynlittle@userandcarer.co.uk’; ‘morvencampbell@userandcarer.co.uk’; ‘lina@userandcarer.co.uk’; ‘userandcarer1@aol.com’; ‘johnrobertson@userandcarer.co.uk’ . 

Please can you explain why this email was not replied to, yet a spurious and misleading message, perhaps referring to this email, was posted on the UCI www site and only updated 23 April?   We look forward to a comprehensive reply from UCI shortly.   Many thanks once again.  Named joint and several Complainants.

Dumfries & Galloway Council Officers refuse to reply – what are Elected Members. MSPs and regulators doing about this unacceptable situation?

The following was delivered to Gavin Stevenson Chief Executive Dumfries & Galloway Council & Alexander Haswell Director of Chief Executive Service on 16-April at 10:04 and then copied extensively.  Including to: The Convener, The Leader, other Elected Members, MSPs, former local MPs, other Council Officers, Care Commission Director of Adult Services Regulation, Mental Welfare Commission, Dumfries CAB Chief Executive, UCI, SWIA, The Deputy Chief Constable (DCC), carers and the media, together with a number of relevant attachments, not reproduced here but available on request to DGPPG. 

It is highly critical and explicitly provided for a right of reply, requesting  evidence of why any of the criticism, some personal, should not be placed openly ‘on the record’ in the public interest if no such evidence was provided.  Eleven days later, well outwith the much extended time period for a response and despite repeated reminders pressing for such a reply, nothing has been received.  So it can only be reasonably assumed all the following is agreed by GS and AH as true and fair comment for the open public record.  Being fully documented all comments can be ’stood up’ in any event, whilst all original emails and letters are freely discoverable from the Council under FoI. 

It is also disappointing that no response has been received from senior Elected Members, the Convener & Leader, who appear to be failing in their duty to represent effectively those who elected them and hold Council Officers properly to account for their behaviour and failures of due process.  Action and comments are also awaited from the regulatory bodies and MSPs etc. 

Dear Mr Stevenson.  We are very pleased to hear from several Elected Members that you will shortly be returning to your post after a long absence and send you very best wishes for a full recovery, hoping to see you again soon.  Unfortunately the saga is seemingly never ending, because your senior officers continue to refuse to answer complaints in an honest, open and transparent way.  They either ignore the questions that are raised or redefine any complaint in their terms to suit the negative rejection they intend to give, whatever the truth.  As we told you on 23 Nov last year, your Council complaints system is morally corrupt.  We are sure all recipients are very bored with the saga and too much correspondence but we make no apology for this, especially as you agreed on 23/11/09 that the complaints and matters raised are legitimate and not vexatious.  We are not stopping until this moral corruption is corrected and believe you support us in that, from what you said last year.

We refer to Mr Haswell’s latest reply, on your behalf, of 12 April 2010, copy attached Ref: SS/3-AH/FS/006.  Yet again this reply is wholly unsatisfactory.  Legitimate questions and complaints we raised have not been answered.  Either the Care Commission continues to be misled by your Officers or we and others in the DPCH Improvement Project Groups have been deliberately lied to.  It’s as simple as that, especially when the Council Press statement of 1 April is taken into account.  Our questions about this to the Project Manager on 6 April remain unanswered. 

We wish to stress we are making no complaint whatsoever about the Project Manager, because she is now put in an impossible position by her senior managers.  She has worked tirelessly and honestly, recognising the importance of the DP model of care in all its facets as a very important resource to all in Dumfries & Galloway.  We trust her, but it seems her good works and ours are being subverted.  That project has nothing to do with day to day routine and ongoing maintenance, decoration, replacements and repairs.  Mr Haswell has chosen to ignore the undertakings given to us all over the past many years, but especially the last two by Mr Alexander and Mrs Collington, that these day to day jobs would be done.  That is not good enough or acceptable.  Can we have all the outstanding answers please.

We do not want a repeat of the history we discussed in November.  Mr Haswell has buried complaints, including one that concerned him directly and the formal Council meeting he convened after 5pm in the public bar of a Castle Douglas hotel to discuss the last FDP complaint, which was of course never answered.  He stated in the presence of three very reliable witnesses that if we wanted to complain to the Ombudsman then we could and if the Council “got a slapped wrist then we will simply ignore it”.  Mr Haswell knows all this is documented and on the record, as is his failure to properly action meetings with Council minutes and Mr & Mrs A’s letter of 10 May 2007 (copy attached) which remains unanswered to this day.  In addition to delivery by email, Mrs A has a signed receipt for its hand delivery to Council HQ.  It concerns a complaint about abuse by a carer at DP and interference with Powers of Attorney, another complaint buried by your Officers, particularly Mr Haswell.  History is now repeating with a named and registered Social Worker (note complaint now submitted to SSSC) because no lessons are learned or corrections made by managers.  This latest ‘investigation’ was another bungled whitewash.

Last November you urged us to complain to the Law Society/SLCC, the SPSO and Standards Commission, because your officers were assuring you that all was resolved.  Because of your extended absence we have not been able to discuss this further with you since, but can advise that complaints have been lodged with SLCC & the Chief Investigating Officer and SSSC.  Since this involves a former Dumfries & Galloway solicitor, now understood to be employed by Edinburgh City Council, a courtesy copy of this note confirming this has been sent to that Chief Executive.

Mr Haswell does refer to the Police and the report you said we would receive.  But DCC Graham has already dealt with this timeously, unlike Mr Haswell.  We have already have a detailed reply from the DCC, which is also attached along with our thanks.  As we say your officers could learn a lot from the Police management culture and the way their complaints procedure actually works and is seen to be open, transparent and honest, being managed with integrity.  Please can / will you establish the same culture in the Council, as the Police have achieved this with effective leadership.       

Finally Mr Haswell appeared to bully the FDP volunteer charity with implied threats about “legal advice”.  Bullying is another characteristic we have experienced in the past from Council Officers.  He also talks about the “right of reply”.  So we are giving a right of reply to the criticism we make in this note.  If by close of business on Monday 19 April Mr Haswell can evidence anything in this note that is untrue, then we will happily withdraw and apologise.  If not then it is all on the public record and we will seek the maximum scrutiny of all the multiple Council failures by whatever means.  It seems that adverse publicity is the only way to hold this Council to account, unless Elected Members will actively do so outwith ‘Party’ politics.

We look forward to your reply by or on Monday, otherwise we assume all that we say is accepted as true and for the public record.   Thank you.   AWIA welfare attorney.

Alleged professional misconduct – formal complaints lodged with SLCC / LSS vs Dumfries & Galloway Council’s senior legal officers.

DGPPG is reliably informed that two families have intimated formal and very detailed complaints alleging professional misconduct by two senior Dumfries and Galloway Council legal officers, both qualified solicitors on the Roll, and a former D&G Council Legal Services solicitor who left very early 2009, soon after an internal complaint was made.  It is understood he now works at the City of Edinburgh Council, although his departure was said to be a “happy coincidence”, not a consequence of his alleged actions.  

It is understood these complaints concern an allegedly deliberate and wholly unauthorised publication by email of a highly detailed but closed court record in a civil case, which contained the most sensitive and damaging personal information, some known to be untrue, about vulnerable adults and others, seemingly in a possible attempt to influence the future evidence in chief of cited witnesses in the case and so wrongly influence the judgement.  Also the allegedly deliberate presentation to the court of information allegedly known to be false and misleading and refusing to correct this for several months, when the truth was known and demonstrated. 

It is alleged that Dumfries and Galloway Council Officers have refused to investigate these matters internally, so forcing external complaints to be made.  Because the consequences have been so serious over an extended time period of more than three years, it is understood the families concerned hope the copious documentary evidence is sufficient for the case to be heard in public by the SSDT (Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal), so all can then learn what goes on behind the scenes and may otherwise be covered up and buried.  It is understood that Social Work played a big part in these matters and further complaints will be made to relevant SW regulatory bodies, if possible.  This is because there is no effective and impartial internal D&G Council complaints process. 

It is understood the Social Work Director was directly involved, as well as his staff allegedly responsible for producing false and misleading documents or information for the court and failing to correct this when it was discovered.  It is suggested there may be other important allegations involving failure of data protection, breaches of confidentiality, conflicts of interest and failure of duty of care. 

It is further understood that the D&G Police have carried out a robust complaints investigation some time ago into those aspects of their involvement in this case, to the satisfaction of at least one family.  A comment has apparently been made that if the police can handle complaints in an honest, transparent and fair manner, leading to positive learning outcomes, then why are D&G Council Officers incapable of doing the same? 

It is also alleged that senior Elected Members were approached for help, but were not prepared to do so and have failed in their duty to represent and seek the necessary accountabilty of Officers, which would have helped correct matters much sooner.  It is understood the D&G Council Chief Executive encouraged intimation of these complaints, agreeing they were justified and not vexatious, because he was informed by statutory Officers there were no problems and that all outstanding complaints had been satisfactorily resolved, allegedly not true. 

This situation appears to be yet another consequence of the embedded and apparently deeply flawed management culture of Dumfries & Galloway Council, which has been publicly depicted as ‘morally corrupt’.  This is also apparent when reading many of the other articles and reports posted on this site and has previously been reported in independent and “damning” inspections of Dumfries & Galloway Council by both SWIA & Audit Scotland. 

It was hoped by many that the departure in 2009 of the former Chief Executive Phil Jones and the appointment of Gavin Stevenson, would herald a new era of integrity, honesty and transparency.  So far in this area of Social Work and complaints handling there no evidence that such change is apparent to ordinary citizens, who should be better served by this Council.    

If DGPPG obtains any further information that is relevant, this post will be updated.  There have been no responses to date from either the Council or UCI. 

Care Commission – request for action, comments and reply to earlier messages, including 1-April

Email text as submitted to Care Commission Regional Manager Henry Mathias Sun 25 April at 11:14.  This relates to the email to J Alexander sent 25/4 at 01:43.   

Dear Mr Mathias.  Apologies.  You and your Dumfries colleagues should have been on the circulation of this.  Marcia Ramsay (a Care Commission Director) had a cc.  Please can we have a reply to our email to you as listed in the attached, 1/4/10 at 11:32 and your comments on the issues raised in the others.   The misleading press statement and what The Care Commission has been told is now causing great anxiety.  What are these “options” that we all know nothing about.  What management changes are being made at the care home?   Given the problems created by the false report to the police and court we are very concerned about the depute.   That’s why we asked about SSSC registration in a later email. 

There is total silence from the Council, despite chasing at Chief Executive level.  We have been told he was back at work last week, part time at least.  So the main point is that we are in the dark and getting more anxious day by day.  This is exactly like 2006.  There is no doubt that what we have been told and the ‘Care model futures project’ we are involved with, is obviously not what the Care Commission has been told and the public/Elected Members informed of via a press statement about the future of the home and respite care.  This was despite the express agreement there would no such public statements about the future until all was agreed with the families and FDP and no “options” could possibly be agreed before September at the earliest. 

As yet there is still no date for the next and outstanding Steering Group meeting.  The last was on 10 Feb, when all agreed urgent action was required.  No notes have yet been published after that meeting at which UCI, Carolyn Little and Morven Campbell, were present and caused upset.  A family representative had to leave the meeting before the end, because she was so upset at what they were saying.  Others were very concerned, and now there are the latest UCI events.  Adequate ‘consultation’ is not achieved by involving UCI.     

Now we also have the latest dimension of UCI activity and the suggestion in your January Inspection Report they will be involved at the care home and taking over a role adequately served by FDP unpid volunteers for nearly 30 years.  Is this also another “audit”, like CIC in Dumfries?   What qualifications and training do UCI have to carry out such roles given their very poor track record and who regulates what they do?  It seems UCI wish to second guess and take over inspections and “audits” from the Care Commission.  This is also very worrying.   We would welcome your reply and comments on all this and what is happening at the care home, as represented to the Care Commission.   Thank you.   welfare attorneys for a resident and FDP Trustees.

 PS  We will copy the text only of this email, not the attachment, to Marcia Ramsay for her information and did so:

Attention Marcia Ramsay  Director Care Commission.  Dear Ms Ramsay.   For your information & action.  

HM, ER & KF should have been included in the original circulation 25/4 at 01:43.  We are looking for a reply and action from HM / Care Commission re 1/4 and later messages.  The present situation of uncertainty, upset & distress is worse than unsatisfactory and surely the Care Commission cannot allow this to continue?  What are you going to do?  This is the text of a message just sent at 11:14 to HM, ER & KF with a full copy of the email & attachments to J Alexander at 01:43, you had a cc.  The 11:14 message text reads:  (as above). 

We now need meaningful action by the Care Commission and your response to this unacceptable situation, because this uncertainty and upset created by the Council Officers cannot be allowed to continue any longer, it is damaging health.  All of this depressing saga is now fully on the public record.  Thank you.

Moral Corruption? No change since 2005/6. SWIA has made no difference.

DGPPG has received this text of email sent to the SW Director J Alexander 25 April by those with a legal status and proper locus in these matters and with the permission of Mr & Mrs A.  Note that names that could identify vulnerable adults have been changed, e.g., Mr & Mrs A, B etc.  This email had a number of attached files and earlier emails, which it is understood were circulated to the Care Commission, Elected Members and various MSPs etc.  Further details of these and recipients can be supplied on request to DGPPG by email or via the ‘Comments’ link or the ‘Reply’ box below. 

DGPPG also understands all this source material is with the press and media ‘on the record’  in the public interest and may be quoted providing the identity or identification of any vulnerable adults by association remains fully protected.  Given past bullying and threats there are reasonable fears of possible repercussions on those most vulnerable.  However the ongoing saga since 2005/6 of what has been described as “moral corruption” now requires exposure to public scrutiny. When a reply is received we hope more information can be provided. 

There will be other posts re UCI and the complaints against that organisation and possibly its Trustee(s).  Complaints have been lodged with OSCR, the Charity Regulator.  Hopefully the role of the Chief Executive of the CAB in the UCI complaints matter will also be clarified as many cannot believe or understand how the CAB, an organisation where carers have the highest possible regard, could possibly condone or support the UCI actions.  DGPPG also notes that the UCI www site, which was carrying a misleading statement about complaints, was changed after a request on 23 April, but does not now refer to the serious complaints that are now outstanding since 14 April, without the required action.   

Also there is still no reply to the email and questions sent to the Trustees of UCI 21 Dec 09, see the earlier post on this site for details.  The Chair of UCI Trustees has now been asked directly to explain this delay and to answer those questions and for action on the complaint and full recall of the UCI Annual Report 2009 and at least one other document, also with unauthorised photographs, that is an “Audit” by UCI of a CIC facility.  We are enquiring into this and have asked for the views and comments of the Care Commission.  

The text of the email 25 April to John Alexander, with minimal editing, is as follows:

“Thank you for your email sent 22/4 at 19:04 as attached, but strangely to me (B) alone, not Mr & Mrs A?  Please explain why that is?  Because they were also present on Weds, and far more directly affected than me by yet another instance of what can very fairly described be as an unacceptable, inexcusable and unforgivable lack of competence by your officers.  Yet you do not mention them, nor offer any apology for what happened, described as, “yesterday’s unfortunate events”.  Do you agree this appears rather dismissive, as you wrote?

B,   Following yesterday’s unfortunate events, it is important that you and I meet to discuss how we can improve relations between yourself and my officers. Please contact Marion here to arrange a suitable time for us to meet.  Many thanks.  John

Is the understatement and irony accidental?  If instead both you and HC (a senior social worker) had immediately written and meaningfully apologised to us all on Wednesday, then “relations” would automatically improve.  But you and your officers seem unable to recognise mistakes and apologise.  So others can judge whether such criticism is justified, attached is the email sent to you 21/4 at 16:04 after the “unfortunate events”.  It is a serious complaint.  But as is often the case, you have not yet bothered to reply. 

Hopefully HC & JP (Complaints Manager) have reported to you how Mrs A was reduced to tears and Mr A provoked to near breaking point.  All because HC kept maintaining and repeating, over and over again, that she wrote and sent a letter “postponing” the meeting we had turned up for at 09:30 in Mr B M Kearney’s office, Buccleuch Street.  HC said she knew the As had received the letter around lunchtime on Tuesday, because her staff (F) had called to check. 

But when Mr A kept repeating that letter did not say anything about “postponing”, only asked for written confirmation that I may attend, it was perfectly obvious HC did not believe him and though him stupid.  So she kept contradicting Mr A, patronising him and asking him to produce the letter.  But it was at his home.  He said several times asking why did he need it with him, that he wasn’t stupid, that he could read and knew what it said.  It was quite straightforward and he had actioned what the letter requested for the meeting to take place, as Mr Kearney then confirmed, in writing. 

Mr A explained this time after time after time.  He also said, as did I, that a letter from HC & sent by email to Mr Kearney on 19/4 at 16:30 and read out by Mr Kearney from the PC in his office earlier that morning, was NOT the letter the As had received.  Mr & Mrs A, already very upset about the meeting fiasco, were then made even more distressed and frustrated at being disbelieved, the clear implication being they were lying about the letter.  HC kept maintaining that she KNEW what it said, and it said “MEETING POSTPONED”.  When asked to display it on the PC in your office she said she couldn’t and that some files were already deleted.  Finally she went to another office and came back with what she said was a copy and read it out in triumph, emphasising it did say POSTPONED.  She would not accept what Mr & Mrs A kept telling her and JP, namely that the letter they received did not!  

Getting nowhere, but agreeing the meeting would be reconvened on Tuesday 27/4, we left.  But as we did so we fortunately had the good sense to ask JP for a copy of the letter had HC printed.  In Woodbank reception he went and made one and gave it to us.  All recipients can now read that 2pp copy (note it is actually dated 16/4) as a scanned image was sent that afternoon to you, JP, HC et al with the complaint email now also attached (File=URGENT … complaint sent 21/4 at 16:52).  You could and should have then compared it to the letter actually delivered, dated 19/4, also copied with that complaint. 

Isn’t it amazing, not only are they very different letters, but that sent to the As by post mentions nothing about “POSTPONED” at all, just as the As kept saying.  But Officers are always right and know best.  The mistake was HC not reading and checking what we can all now see was mangled, but plausible, ‘cut and paste’ garbage.  A subordinate, F was left to ‘sign pp’ and post.  Presumably HC takes responsibility for this and not F? 

Do you agree that your senior officers should personally check important letters?  Especially when they are leaving it to the very last minute to supposedly cancel an important meeting by post, despite the As having email, and indeed even have a telephone!  Mr Kearney was told the Weds 09:30 meeting was cancelled at 16:30 on Monday, so why weren’t the As told at the same time, by email?  Please explain the deliberate delay by using post such that HC then had to get F to call the As at least twice in the morning of 20/4 to check the letter (that she thought had been sent) had been received, by unreliable post.  If HC had put as much effort into checking the letter content, then “relations” would be much improved.   

As you know, this was an important meeting, first requested by the As last December, but not organised by your officers timeously.  An important meeting about the abuse of the second AWIA attorney powers granted by C to replace the PoAs removed by the deliberate abuse and improper undue influence of the D&G Council carer at a Council run care home in Aug 2006.  The carer actually addressed the envelope because C could not.  But the complaint, like so many was covered up.  These are serious complaints that are still outstanding and never resolved, just like the ‘inappropriate touching’ complaint.  A meeting so important that, as Mrs A said in tears, caused her to have no sleep the night before through worry, because of what your officers and social workers are doing to them and to C. 

For those recipients who may not know the significance of the history, also attached is an email report sent to Mr Leckie at SWIA on 29/8/06 at 00:10, including copy correspondence with the Office of the Public Guardian & MWC about the abuse by a carer at DPCH.  None of these serious complaints were properly investigated, still being outstanding and ‘buried’ by AH.  See letter 10 May 2007 as attached re the D&G Council Complaints Appeal Panel, still unanswered to this day.  All this and much more is now fully ‘on the record’.

Then add into that mix the recent UCI gross breach of privacy by publishing unauthorised and literally ‘defaced’ photographs.  You are also very aware of the additional sensitivity about photographs and why, but you did nothing.  This was also discussed last Weds, because you & JP and other D&G Council Officers, cc the Chief Executive, did not bother to reply or take any action about the complaint the As sent to you and UCI on 15/4.  But after admitting they had no required written permission, UCI ignored that complaint as well and then engaged in word games.  So the culture seems common. 

Please note that Ms IM has a copy of this message in her capacity as Chief Executive of Dumfries CAB, as well as Chair of UCI Trustees, because these are issues that go much wider than UCI and are no doubt relevant to others.  That is certainly what we were told when greatly helped in the past by another CAB, not in Dumfries

We are sure you do not mean to appear dismissive about the upset last Weds, wholly created by your officers, when saying these are just “unfortunate events”,  because to do so would be to fan the flames, not put out the fire.  So please will you now provide a detailed written reply and explanation of those “unfortunate events”, which are subject to formal complaints and hopefully an apology.  Or please at least acknowledge the complaints and get them properly investigated by a really independent person. 

Unfortunately the situation you have created is like, if not worse than, 2006 before the “damning SWIA Report”.  Because D&G Council Officers maintain and buttress a wall of silence, apart from making misleading anonymous press statements like that of 1^st April.  Despite our repeated requests there is still no clarification about the anxiety and upset that has created, nor other outstanding complaints and questions, for examples see April emails as listed below, with no reply or answers to legitimate complaints.  All these emails and their attached files must be available from D&G Council under FoI with names redacted, and the date & times makes an explicit FoI request very easyl: 

22/4 at 08:34 – Confirm & justify or withdraw misleading press statement 1/4 and apologise; chases ‘effective participation’.

20/4 at 09:50 – Care Home management changes.  Imminent identification of “options in a few weeks” as the press statement 1/4 falsely claims.  A public announcement made by the Council in clear breach of an express agreement with the families.   Also chases for action re UCI & the photos.

16/4 at 14:32 – SSSC Registration & Care home depute manager.

16/4 at 10:04 – re Care Commission “weak” & care home complaint by FDP & outstanding complaints to AH & Chief Exec.

15/4 at 16:45 – to Project Manager seeking explanation and clarification of press statement 1/4 and date of next project group meeting, last was 10 Feb.

9/4 at 12:44 – to J Alexander asking why Project Group email was deleted by you without being read?  Requested a reply, none given.

9/4 at 23:57 – to C/I of Police with thanks for the DCC’s comprehensive update letter 6/4 & for his action.

8/4 at 12:27 – formal complaint re press statement 1/4.  Not even acknowledged and “deleted without being read” by you.  

7/4 at 12:25 – Are Senior Managers in Denial?  Asking for a response and action re legitimate complaints.

7/4 at 10:32 – FDP complaint re DPCH response byAH requesting factual corrections for Care Commission.

6/4 at 18:09 – to Project Manager re DP Project Group requesting clarification/correction of misleading press statement 1/4.

1/4 at 11:32 – to Henry Mathias Care Commission “Weak Grading in successive Reports” misleading information from AH.  Request Care Commission comments and action.

We are more than happy to meet with you and others to discuss all this and get answers from you, as this will obviously greatly help to improve relations.  This should also include the actions agreed at the CD meeting on Dec 16^th following which you have broken every undertaking you gave publicly at that meeting, as also recalled by Cllr I Blake and reported the next day by the many carers then present and in the press.  (and on this site).  May we suggest that you reconvene that meeting, as you then promised to do in January, and try again as that will help enormously to improve relations, which we all want to achieve.

To do that is very simple.  Honesty, transparency, timely answers to questions, truthful information and effective participation.  Our request about that dated 5 Nov 2009, after the ARC debacle has just been ignored, despite Gavin Stevenson’s assurances at our meeting 23/11.  This was chased again on 22/4 qv.  Similarly the request to observe, let alone participate, in the Personalisation Board was ignored, yet UCI attend.  See earlier posts on this site. 

You ask about improving relations.  Well it’s pretty obvious from this catalogue of failure what you can do to achieve this, so we look forward to hearing from you some dates when you are available for a meeting to discuss this with all those affected and involved.   No doubt you will be sending a list of dates and times early next week and we look forward to receiving these. Thank you. B”

As soon as any reply is received we will update this post.

Latest desperate requests pleading for a reply from Chief Executive Gavin Stevenson

The public press statement by the Council on 1/4 was in clear breach of the express undertaking that no announcements would be made without full and prior agreement of the families and FDP to avoid upsetting residents and service users with uncertainty.  The Council has unilaterally ignored this, showing they just do not care and say one thing but do another.  It’s just like the ARC closure announcement 20 Oct 2009.  We believe they made the statement, perhaps authorised by Mr Haswell, or Mr Alexander, because they have mislead the Care Commission telling one story to the Regulator (and possibly Elected Members?) and another different story to the families.  This is to cover up the failure to carry out basic decorating, repairs and ongoing day to day maintenance.  This included putting residents at risk of harm, the Care Commission’s words in June 2009.  Who did authorise and make the press statement?  Will they tell us?

This is the email sent Friday 23/4 at 13:26:

Dear Mr Stevenson.  PLEASE can we have the requested clarification of the Press Statement made 1^st April by an anonymous “Council Spokesperson”.  Why is there absolute silence and refusal to respond in any way by you and your senior officers to our repeated requests for clarification?  The question is very simple. 

The uncertainty you (D&G Council) have created is causing great distress and increasing anxiety as time passes.  It appears there is a serious implied threat to the future of DPCH, which could include possible closure like 2006, because of these undisclosed and secret “options” that the Council has announced but everyone refuses to either deny or confirm or explain.   Do they exist and if so what are they?  

If they do not exist then please stop causing much distress and anxiety and clearly say so, apologising for this misleading press announcement.  This behaviour is exactly what D&G Council Officers did in 2006.   

We last wrote to you and your officers about this yesterday morning 22/4 at 08:34 (and many times before that during April).  In view of the importance and significance we expected a reply by now, since this concerns vulnerable people’s home and essential respite services.  The ARC closures were sprung on us last October announced on the BBC Radio News, is this another example?   

Why will you and your officers, like Mr Alexander & Ms Collington, not tell us what is going on?  Our question is very simple.  We have asked repeatedly during April, but get silence and no response.  Why are they doing this?  

We look forward to your urgent reply today, this afternoon, before there is another weekend of uncertainty.   Thank you.   AWIA welfare attorneys for a DPCH resident and FDP Trustees.

This followed up the message sent 22/04 at 08:34 as follows:

Dear Mr Stevenson.   On 1^st April an anonymous “Council Spokesperson” made what we say is a false and misleading press statement.  See attached and other correspondence.  This stated that by now, “in a few weeks” Council “options” would be identified.  We say that was deliberately misleading to justify the false justification for failures “during successive years” given to the Care Commission. 

Please will you personally confirm as Chief Executive on behalf of the Council whether this press statement is, or is not, correct and truthful?    If not please can we have a public retraction and apology for the upset and distress needlessly created, together with a proper reply to the complaints and the necessary works put in hand immediately.

It you say it is true, then please disclose in detail what these DPCH “options” are, who has agreed them and when?  Also explain why they and the press statement were announced without any necessary consultation and impact assessment on those directly affected?

Do these options relate to the imminent departure of the Manager, which is now widely rumoured.  Yet again we have no official information, despite this being explicitly requested.   Is this departure linked to all the very serious outstanding complaints against him and the depute, or another “happy coincidence” like KG, the council solicitor who also left soon after serious complaints, now referred in detail to the SLCC and LSS with others, as you know?    

Please would you also note that we do not accept the outcomes or manner in which Mr Haswell has handled and simply dismissed justified complaints.  Particularly given his documented track record in this area.   

Finally please will you ensure your senior managers now provide answers to all outstanding questions, including a response about “Effective participation” email 5/11/09 as attached.  We discussed this on 23/11 when you assured me this would be implemented early this year.  But nothing has changed and there is no reply to that long outstanding email request whilst many other public undertakings by Mr J Alexander have been broken, destroying trust in what he says.  In many ways the situation has deteriorated and is even worse than in 2006. 

We look forward to your urgent reply, ‘on the record’.   Thank you.   AWIA welfare attorney for a DPCH resident and FDP Trustee.

UCI – how they correspond and react to serious and upsetting complaints. Is this acceptable, let alone professional?

Email sent 23/4 at 01:41.   Note to OSCR.   Please FW this message FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

Good Morning to the recipients listed.  (those listed below + Chief Exec D&G Council, John Burns NHS, OSCR, and the Secretary R S Macdonald Charitable Trust, as UCI funders.)

We received 11 copies of the attached email from Hazel Simpson sent between 19:54 & 19:57 on 22/4 nearly 6 hours ago.  We would like to thank her for sending these 11 messages, but have to say we are rather bemused.  

Is Hazel Simpson part of UCI, since she appears to be connected in some way?  Because it seems Carolyn Little sent UCI complaint messages to the Chair Irene Mungall and the three others, including HS.  It’s all very unclear, because C Little’s email circulation list is enormous, with multiple duplications.  Is this a UCI communication and circulation list?  The first four names, reproduced exactly as they appear on CL email, are:    

Irene Mungall <IreneMungall@dumfriescab.casonline.org.uk>; HAZEL SIMPSON <lhtsimpson@btinternet.com>; Gail Rhind <gailrhindnsfs@aol.co.uk>; Angela Cameron <angelacameron@turningpointscotland.com>;

 The first name we recognise, but not the following three.  Are all, like Irene Mungall, part of UCI?  Perhaps other Trustees?  If so this is not our experience of how a responsible Trustee or charity worker would normally be expected to behave.  

Irene Mungall is the Chair of UCI Trustees and her email address appears to be that of Dumfries Citizens Advice Bureau.  Please will she and the other three please introduce themselves to us and explain their roles.

Hazel Simpson wrote 22/4 at 19:54/7: 

“I like this one! So helpful of them to place all their pseudo-literate documents in context.  I do hope you’re preparing to grovel!  By the way, how do you provide evidence that you have destroyed something? Would a pile of ash satisfy them?”

 We are not quite sure what all this means or what it adds to the complaint?  Is this an official UCI response?  

Perhaps the UCI Chair could explain this to us and to the UCI funders?  Is this how UCI conducts its communications and treats a very serious complaint?  

Judex Paul actually did say that evidence of destruction should be provided, but not perhaps “a pile of ash”.   Confirmation from a responsible officer of recycling would perhaps be more sensible and appropriate?  Please would Hazel Simpson explain this comment and her role in this serious complaint?    

We look forward to hearing from you early on Friday, noting Mr & Mrs A are quite reasonably expecting a substantive response and confirmation of the document recall before close of business on Friday.  Thank you.  

DGPPG Note:  there was no reply on Friday or to date.  If any reader wishes to have a copy of  the actual Hazel Simpson email to verify what is reported here, then please email DGPPG with that request and your email, or click on the link and post a comment or reply in the box below.   As soon as DGPPG are notified of any reply from UCI or HS, then the information will be posted here.  Many are very surprised that the UCI Annual Report, a 4pp glossy brochure with the literally ‘defaced’ photograph on the front page scribbled out in black felt tip, does not list the UCI Trustees.  Many thought this was a requirement of good practice as set out by OSCR, the charity regulator.  As yet no one in DGPPG knows who all the current UCI Trustees are.  The Chair is identified; she is also the Chief Executive of the Dumfries CAB.  UCI shares the CAB offices 81-85 Irish Street.  If anyone reading this has a list of all the current UCI Trustees, please post a comment and inform us. If Hazel Simpson wishes to explain or expand on her reply to Carolyn Little, then DGPPG would be delighted to publish her response on this site – just post a comment or reply, especially if she is a Trustee.