UCI Complaint – recall action being chased more than a week later. Moral corruption?

PERSONAL Attention Irene Mungall  Chair UCI and FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

Dear Ms Mungall.  It is now over a week since we complained to you, and you still have not had the elementary good manners to let us know if you have recalled all your Annual Reports with the unauthorised photographs of our vulnerable adult relative on the front page.  Also the Reports you gave out to C.I.C clients and others, which also have more photographs in.  We know you have not  stopped giving out your report as I  came to your office yesterday and was given 2 Annual Reports with my relative’s face blacked out with Felt Tip pen, what an insult to our relative.  UCI has admitted the photographs are not authorised, that you have no permission, but still you refuse to recall these documents, which you are legally obliged to do.

We were told by Mr Judex Paul yesterday that you MUST destroy all these Reports and keep the evidence for us to see. We require a reply to this Email by tomorrow (Friday) to let us know what you have or have not done.  We are not waiting 14 Days for this to be done, because you have already caused great distress not only to us but also to our relative, a vulnerable adult. 

If the staff responsible had any integrity, honour and decency at all, then they would consider their position.   By these actions and their defiance they are surely unfit to discharge the objectives UCI set out to OSCR and in your literature and www site.  This site is presently misleading as you have had these complaints for a week.  So your www “statement” is a lie.  UCI is not a credible ‘charity’.

Named AWIA Welfare and Financial Attorneys for the vulnerable adult concerned.  Please copy any reply by email   in addition to any hard copy sent by post.

These are UCI statements, when will UCI live up to them?

Our mission:

To ensure that people who have mental illness, dementia or learning disabilities, and their carers have a representative voice and, as a result, see positive changes in their service provision.

Our values underpin all of the above;

• The right to be treated fairly and with dignity

Objects as cited on OSCR www site:  To relieve the needs of carers and users of care services in Dumfries and Galloway.

UCI complaints also submitted to OSCR and misleading www site statement

This email was sent 22 April at 09:45.  The UCI was changed on 23/4 but no longer refers to complaints at all, having previously and wrongly stated there were no complaints.

PERSONAL Attention Irene Mungall  Chair UCI and FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

Your public and current UCI www site home page statement is misleading and untrue.  UCI received complaints last week.  In view of this statement, please will you ensure the UCI site immediately records and reports these complaints truthfully and also refers to the unanswered questions of 21 Dec 2009, which were implicit complaints.  

To avoid doubt we have complained and are complaining about the UCI Trustees failure to reply in any way to that detailed email, even if only an email reply to DGPPG asking for a name and postal address, if that is what you required.  To suggest UCI Charity Trustees can simply ignore correspondence like this, because it is from a group of carers many of whom are known personally to Morven Campbell from various meetings, is disingenuous and dissembling.  

If UCI has any doubt about the email 21/12/09 you can refer to the further copy sent yesterday or click on: http://www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk/activity-resource-centres-arcs-2009/dumfries-and-galloway-news/another-option-for-a-budget-cut-cease-public-funding-of-uci-as-it-is-suggested-no-value-is-being-obtained-by-the-learning-disabled/

Named Welfare Attorneys for a resident and ARC service user with full address supplied.

UCI. Complaint restated after ‘word games’ trying to pretend the message 15/4 was not actually a “complaint”.

An email sent to UCI on 21/4 at 21:08 with an earlier reply from UCI.

PERSONAL Attention Irene Mungall  Chair UCI and FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

To avoid any doubt re the UCI www site home page statement dated 2 March 2010:  THIS email and all earlier emails, especially that dated 15 April as attached, ARE COMPLAINTS.

1. OSCR are also asked to investigate along with the UCI funders Dumfries & Galloway Council & NHS D&G and the R S Macdonald Charitable Trust – Mr R K Austin WS Trust Secretary.
2. CIC are requested to note the matter of the 3 photos in the UCI “****** Audit Oct/Nov 09”, which we require recalled and destroyed – attn Brian Murphy Asst Dir Scotland.
3. Henry Mathias Care Commission and SWIA are asked why an unregulated ‘pseudo charity’ like UCI is carrying out non independent ‘Audits’?  Is this not the role of the Care Commission? 

From:  Mr & Mrs A     Full name & address supplied.  Please ensure that IN ADDITION to any correspondence sent by post you also send a copy by email as an attached file to us at: email address supplied

 We refer to our complaints made last week in various tel calls and by email, particularly Thursday 15/4.   To avoid any doubt a further copy is attached.  We noted that UCI arrogantly refused to treat this email as a “complaint”, refer to the UCI reply below. 

However, Mr Judex Paul, a D&G Council Complaints Officer, today stated this was “obviously a complaint”.  Yet on behalf of UCI, Project Coordinator Ms ****  seemed to want to play word games and failed to take action.   This is a further complaint about Ms ***** failure to so act and her unsatisfactory reply.

UCI has failed to recall all copies of the Annual Report 2009 and evidence to us that this has been done and that all copies are destroyed.  Judex Paul stated today UCI should do this immediately as a minimum action.  As at 12:05 today UCI is still freely distributing the “Annual Report 2009” at 81-85 Irish Street Dumfries  DG1 2PQ with a face ‘blacked out’ in scribbled felt tip.  We asked for and were freely given 2 copies.  UCI is still distributing this Report, with a literally ‘defaced’ photograph, despite the explicit request last week.

UCI has failed to recall all copies of the “Report of Community Integrated Care ****** Audit” and evidence that all unauthorised photographs taken and published with permission have been destroyed.  There are at least three such photographs in this ‘Audit’.  We ask again if written and informed permission and consent was obtained from all others pictured in this document before photos were taken and published.  If so can this be produced to an appropriate regulatory body with evidence of the actual dates. 

Exactly who or what official body ‘regulates’ the activities of UCI, where we now note *****  and ****** are self styled ‘auditors’?  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Please will UCI, as an ‘auditor’ of others, note that your Scottish Charity No. is 6 digits long – 031853.  It is not SCO and five digits per your Annual Report.  Surely, those who self style and purport to ‘Audit’, whilst claiming to be experts in ‘communication’, should themselves be capable of getting the basics correct?  This is in addition to understanding basic human rights of privacy, by not breaching the elementary fundamentals.

We cannot find your published complaints procedure.  It does not appear to be on the UCI www site nor is there a named officer or Trustee to complain to.  If it is we apologise and please direct us to it by return, with the site unchanged, as we have taken a ‘snapshot’.  We assume there is written policy.  Please will you email a file copy by return stating when the procedure was written, by whom and the date first published.  This complaint is therefore addressed to the Chair Irene Mungall.

We note below that Ms **** for UCI now writes today, at least 4-5 days after we first complained, that: “The next stage of the procedure is for myself to undertake an investigation into your complaint and a detailed response will be sent to you within 14 working days as per UCI procedures.” 

But Ms ****  is one of those directly complained of, as responsible for these breaches.  Ms **** is not therefore ‘independent, just as UCI itself is not ‘independent’, in the true meaning of that word.  UCI is clearly trying to ‘drum up business’ and justify income from it’s sponsors, which inevitably invokes the thought of ‘pipers and tunes’.  UCI is not a real volunteer independent charity.  In reality it is acting as a ‘pseudo charity’ being a de facto extension of D&G Council & NHS D&G, but accountable to no one.    

To avoid any doubt please note that we are instructing UCI under no circumstances to approach or discuss any matters with our relative.  We request that both UCI and D&G Council note this and confirm this instruction is understood.  UCI has already caused him (and us) enough distress and upset. 

The UCI www site carries the following on the ‘Home’ page:  http://www.userandcarer.co.uk/home.html  

Statement from UCI dated 2 March 2010 published on the UCI www site home page

We understand that emails are circulating containing mis-information regarding UCI activities.  We can confirm that UCI has a comments and complaints procedure, the purpose of which is to address any concerns people may have.  We can also confirm that to date, UCI has received no notification of any complaint.  As a result we are not in a position to respond to the views and perspectives that have been sent anonymously to others. We have nothing to add to this statement at the current time.   2^nd March 2010

A group of concerned carers did write to UCI by email on 21 Dec 2009 with a number of questions clearly addressed: “Attn Trustees & Management Committee UCI.   81-85 Irish Street Dumfries DG1 2PQ  OSCR: SC031835”.  A copy of this email is attached and can be read with other comments at the following link:    http://www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk/activity-resource-centres-arcs-2009/dumfries-and-galloway-news/another-option-for-a-budget-cut-cease-public-funding-of-uci-as-it-is-suggested-no-value-is-being-obtained-by-the-learning-disabled/

 All recipients should note that UCI did not reply in any way to these reasonable questions, bearing in mind UCI purports to represent learning disabled users and carers, precisely the group asking the questions.  It is also seeking more funding, but therein lies the basic problem. 

Perhaps UCI Trustees will now reply and explicitly confirm their involvement and position re ‘Personalisation’ and the closure of ARCs, which UCI as part of the ‘Personalisation Board’ was clearly involved with last October.

UCI Trustees and sponsors should also note there are many in the learning disabled community, real carers, who are highly critical of both the competence and value of any UCI activity.  Some of those comments are on the DGPPG www site.  We appreciate this may not apply to other UCI activities, but this complaint evidences great incompetence and a lack of basic integrity in dealing with learning disabled vulnerable adults.  We do not consider UCI a worthy or worthwhile recipient of public funds for learning disability.  If not competent in that area what about elsewhere.  Who is auditing the day to day activity and value for money of UCI generally, or is it convenient to have an uncritical and biddable ‘consultation’ partner who is dependant, rather than independent?   

Mr & Mrs A and as Welfare Attorneys for a vulnerable learning disabled adult properly appointed under the AWIA with PoA registered at the Office of the Public Guardian.        

Please copy any reply to:  email address supplied  in addition to any hard copy.   Note following emails:  

-Original Message—-

From: userandcarer1@aol.com

Date: 21/04/2010 8:29

To:  Mr & Mrs A

Subj: Re: Unauthorised photographs of vulnerable adult

 Dear Mrs A,

We now take your email (below) as part of our complaints procedure. 

However to ensure that we adhere to our procedure please supply me with your home address, in order that further correspondence can be sent to you.  The next stage of the procedure is for myself to undertake an investigation into your complaint and a detailed response will be sent to you within 14 working days as per UCI procedures.  Yours sincerely,  Carolyn Little  Project Coordinator  User and Carer Involvement, 885 Irish Street, Dumfries.  DG1 2PQ   

—–Original Message—–

From: Mr & Mrs A

To: userandcarer1@aol.com

Sent: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:40

Subject: Unauthorised photographs of vulnerable adult

Dear Carolyn Little,

                                 It was clearly a complaint and we expect UCI to deal with it as such.  We are not interested in clever word games from supposed ‘charity’.  Have you withdrawn and destroyed all publications?

Having published unauthorised photographs, to save money by ‘blacking out’ the face of a vulnerable adult with scribbled felt tip is not acceptable.  It is adding insult to injury and has already caused much distress. How can you possibly claim to be ‘communication’ experts?     

Mr. and Mrs A

DGPPG Note:  no copy of the UCI complaints procedure and policy was emailed to Mr & Mrs A as requested last week.  Nothing has been received to date.  Some speculate that perhaps it was not actually then in existence, as otherwise any credible and professional organisation, especially a ‘charity’ operting in such a sensitive area, would have sent an attached file copy by return.  But UCI did not, or perhaps could not do so.  Just like the www site statement was misleading and the failure to reply to an important email and questions for more than 4 months.  DGPPG looks forward to the Chair’s explanation for all this, bearing in mind the very professional CAB association and sponsorship.  Is there any possible conflict of interest in this set up, given that as ordinay citizens being badly done to by a quasi official body, Mr & Mrs A could well have approached the CAB for help?

UCI Written complaint confirming earlier tel calls.

This written complaint confirmation was sent 15/4 at 18:25

Attention UCI Trustees; The Managing Director of CIC; The Director of Social Work, NHS D&G Chief Executive and OSCR.

Unauthorised photography of a vulnerable learning disabled adult in Council / CIC care.  Formal complaint.

As you know from our very recent telephone calls it has come to our attention that UCI has taken and published in at least two promotional ‘newsletters’ several unauthorised photographs of Mr A.  We understand these photographs were taken at a care home, address detailed and possibly elsewhere by Morvan Cambell of UCI.  We understand that one image is for a newsletter to promote Personalisation on behalf of D&G Council and NHS Dumfries & Galloway.

We further understand, as published on www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk that UCI is not an independent charity in the normal sense of that word, but substantially funded by taxpayers cash via the Council and NHS.  Please will the UCI Chair of Trustees advise its formal complaints procedure and to what authority it is answerable in regulatory terms, that is in addition to OSCR.  Ditto CIC.

Since D&G Council & NHS Dumfries & Galloway fund Mr A’s care package the NHS Chief Executive and Director of Social Work should take note of this abuse of Mr A’s rights to privacy and tell us what they individually are going to do about it.

UCI is significantly funded by the Council & NHS and appears to be working to a Council / NHS brief to promote Personalisation.  Does this influence UCI actions and cause them to believe they can operate in this cavalier and unacceptable fashion, because they are under Council / NHS patronage?

As you know Mr A has appointed us, his parents, as his Welfare Attorneys under the Adults with Incapacity Act.

As supposed experts in ‘User and Carer Involvement’ and with CIC suppliers of care, all of you are or should be aware that you require written permission before taking photographs of vulnerable adults, let alone then publishing them in the way you have done.

You have no written permission and did not seek any.  That is simply inexcusable, given all the circumstances.

Therefore we insist that you immediately destroy all copies of any publication that contains any image of Mr A, which was taken without any permission and is being used without written permission from us.

When challenged in recent telephone calls, Morven Campbell claimed she had permission from the CIC Care Manager at ****** to take these photos.  That Manager then claimed that Mr A had given UCI permission.  This is contradictory and someone or both is/are not telling the truth and trying to cover up the facts.  But whoever is now claiming what, it has been admitted and established that neither organisation or person has obtained any required written permission whatsoever to take and use photographs of Mr A for this purpose.  Did you have such permission in advance from all the other vulnerable adults in the images you are using.  Or will you now try and create such permission after the event?

Ms Campbell has said that she cannot scrap the leaflet, because too many have been printed and it would cost too much.  In another case she says the leaflet and picture is only an internal image for a CIC / UCI document, so that’s OK.  For the other she has said she will go through each one and ‘black out’ Mr A.

Take note that we are now stating that is not acceptable.  A ‘blacked out’ image raises more questions and is not a solution.

You do not have permission and none is being granted.  We demand that you immediately destroy all leaflets and images of Mr A.  If you have published any then we demand on his behalf that these are recalled and destroyed.  Further that you all confirm to us in writing no later than 5pm Friday April 16^th this what you have done.  We also demand for Mr A an unreserved written apology for this abuse of his rights to privacy and an undertaking from the most senior person(s) in your organisations that such acts will never occur again and that you have taken necessary steps to ensure this.  UCI is clearly unfit as a charity to carry out this sort of role, which should be truly independent and run by properly trained and competent persons.

It seems that lip service is paid towards vulnerable adults, with a great rhetoric of protection.  This is it seems however until bodies like the Council, NHS, UCI and CIC want to do something for their own benefit and purposes, like promoting personalisation.  This is not good enough or acceptable.

We look forward to hearing from you all on Friday 16^th in writing to our email address: as supplied.  Thank you.  Mr & Mrs A

DGPPG Note: There was no action by Friday 16/4 as requested and no reply.  It was later discovered that it was not a “leaflet” but the UCI Annual Report 2009, which makes matters even worse.  UCI has admitted the photos were taken without proper written permission and Ms Campbell’s solution to “save money” was to use felt tip and scribble out the face.  Later Mr A received one of these Reports by post and was very upset saying, “Why is my face scribbled over?”.  Also Mr A is not a “Member” of UCI as the Report’s caption falsely claims.   As of Weds 21/4 the ‘blacked out and defaced’ reports were still being handed out by UCI.

Questions to Alex Haswell about his biased, unsatisfactory, inaccurate and dismissive reply to the FDP complaint 22 Feb 2010. Nothing changes.

The following is an email sent 7/4 at 10:32 to Alex Haswell in response to his dismissive reply to the FDP complaint of 22 Feb 2010 as posted on this site.  Mr Haswell, standing in for the Chief Executive, redefined the complaint in his words, without agreeing this with the FDP, then ‘answered’ his words, finding no grounds.  This is a well worn technique.  He was challenged on 7/4 on just a few points of detail, but has not yet replied.  Attached to this message 7/4 was an email dated 15 Oct 2009 from B Needham the Manager DPCH saying “Hi.  It has been reported today”.  It being the loose and dangerous glass in the back door that in June 2009 the Care Commission reported and told the Manager was a safety risk of harm to the vulnerable residents and staff & visitors.  But the Manager omly reported it 15/10/09 after receiving the following email, which was also sent openly to media in frustration that for nearly 4 months he did nothing!   John Alexander and other more senior  knew of this dangerous fault (and the dilapidated furniture) but also did nothing about it.  JA had a copy of the following on 14 Oct 2009 at 16:24: 

“Barry.  Given what Elizabeth (Care Com) said to us all in June about the foreseeable risk of harm from the loose glass, has a local glazier finally been instructed to sort this out as a matter of urgency?  Particularly since it is also in her report and you had an advance draft copy before our Aug wkg grp mtg.  Why has such a simple local matter not been resolved long ago from the established budget before someone is injured?  As you know Jean (Sec FDP) raised matters of neglected maintenance like this with JA at the very first ‘DP meeting’ in early 2008 and he then promised action 18 mths ago.” 

Email text 7/4:  Attn:  Mr Haswell.  

The attached is just one example, but also a matter of safety, of what your highly selective and redefined ‘complaint investigation’ has conveniently obfuscated.  With a changed description it was not very obvious in your 22/3/10 ‘Appendix’ list; presumably because it does not fit the spin, just like the furniture?  Please can you explain and justify this, because it is clearly material?   

Perhaps you would also now detail when furniture was ‘reported’ (certainly in June 2009 by the Care Commission) and when actually delivered to DP?  We know it was after the FDP complaint both at our Feb meeting that night to the staff and then in writing 22 Feb.  This is missing entirely from your list.  Why?   

Why is it not possible for complaints to be investigated and reported transparently and honestly with all the facts, warts and all, not with selectivity to fit the inevitable denial?   

Also and amazingly you ignore all the evidence of the repeated requests for basic work like decorating, both external to protect the fabric/woodwork, and internal to be done.  Hence “shabby”.  The complaint was that in many responses over “successive years” since before 2006 we were told that, ‘yes, of course it will be done’.  Those were the ‘undertakings’.  You redefine our complaint in your words and then ignore this, no doubt because the complaint is justified.   

If your ‘investigation’ is correct as you say, then we should have been told: “we are not doing it because of the ‘independent review’ or the development project”.  That is at the heart of our complaint, but you conveniently ignore it.  Your response is therefore logically inconsistent and confirms that senior managers did deliberately mislead us, because that is not what they said. 

Also please reflect how amazing it is that in your Appendix list of 24 items over 2 years from 1 Feb 2008 to 1 Feb 2010, one item being, “Request to change time clock”, this and 18 other items were both reported and fixed the same day.  It is truly and really encouraging to see that there is such an immediate rapid response facility within an hour or two the same day, including a repair to a leaking flat roof.  Is it possible that this list and such times really are too good to be true in all instances?   

Of the remaining 5 items, fixing a faulty washing machine took 1 day, but fixing a “Faulty and loose front plate to double socket” took 4 days.  If anything should have been done within the day with priority then surely a death from electrocution risk for learning disabled adults should be the highest?  This took 4 days, not within the day as is clearly routinely achievable?   Faulty security lights in 4 days and a replacement tumble drier in 7 days do look realistic.  

However it is the “Cracked Glass in back door –  reported 15/10/09”, which was “repaired/replaced 19/10/09” in 4 days that is of particular interest.  See the attached email and tell us if you notice anything, like the date?  This item evidences a lie.  This was ‘reported’ in June.  It is the matter the Care Commission specifically reported in June when the inspector saw Mr Needham.  It is really ‘loose glass’, why the change in description?  

Yet Mr Needham only reported it, as your ‘investigation’ evidences, on 15 Oct 09.  That is precisely what we reported and are complaining about.  But you loftily dismiss the complaint saying all is wonderful and there is no substance, then adding implicit bullying threats to a volunteer charity.  Perhaps your ‘investigation’ is either not very thorough, as it should be, or it is as we have said another example of dissembling denial.  Perhaps you would tell us all which it is or give some other explanation.  Either way this is a complaint about your partiality and failure to investigate and report in a competent, fair and balanced manner, which is an essential requirement of your job.   

Until we can have legitimate complaints properly, fairly, independently, transparently and honestly investigated no lessons will ever be learned.  There is zero accountability.    

We look forward to your ‘on the record’ corrections on this and the earlier queries raised to Mr Mathias on 1/4 and the Project Manager yesterday 6/4.  This will help inform FDP at its next meeting 29/4.  We have already asked what has happened to the Council appeal procedure, which you failed to mention, or is FDP to go directly to the SPSO?   

Thank you.  Named Welfare Attorneys for a DP resident and individual FDP Trustees.

There has been no reply from Mr Haswell or the Chief Executive. 

Care Commission – Trustees reject A Haswell bullying response to FDP complaint as “cleverly worded legalistic spin, presumably intended to obfuscate the real facts?”

Email reply to Care Commission 1/4/10 at 11:32.  This was copied to: Mr Haswell, the Chief Executive, Convener Gilroy, Leader Hyslop, other Elected Members, John Alexander, the Project Manager and openly to the local media.  There has been no response or request for any correction from the Officers or Members.  Hence it can only be assumed that they all agree what was written is true and fair comment.  The Care Commission has also failed to respond.  As soon there is a response and the DGPPG is notified, that will be posted on this site. 

Dear Mr Mathias.  Many thanks for your reply this morning.  We note what you say and shall be writing more, hopefully today, with a cc to you and on the public record as is this, about the Council reply to the FDP complaint, dated 22 Mach 2010 Ref: SS/1-AH/FS/004, which the Council has copied to you.  This has now been discussed with the Chair and some others ahead of the next Trustees’ meeting, scheduled for April 29^th.  One major issue, amongst others, is this continued use of the term “independent review” in the reply from A Haswell, who is standing in for the Chief Executive.  

To those with all the facts, that letter is reasonably interpreted as cleverly worded legalistic spin, presumably intended to obfuscate the real facts?  From our perspective it appears to be highly misleading at best.  We will circulate questions about this over next few days when written.  All will all be on record since clearly that is the only way to get action, like the furniture complained of last June, including by the Care Commission, suddenly delivered after adverse publicity!

All concerned have been advised that Mr Haswell, for D&G Council on behalf of the Chief Executive, is trying to bully FDP into issuing a written public apology.  The Council implies legal issues & defamation in this response to the FDP, an active volunteer charity for 30 years, for their temerity and daring in making a legitimate complaint about Council failures over “successive years”, your words.  This includes breaking undertaking after undertaking to both residents and the FDP to carry out basic decoration and maintenance, conveniently not addressed by AH. 

Take note that the Council, through Mr Haswell who has outstanding complaints against himself personally for failing to conduct proper and due process including an earlier FDP complaint which was ‘buried’, will be requested to stand up this claim of defamation and implicit legal threats publicly, or withdraw them.  Because FDP is simply telling the truth and exposing Council failures.  No doubt after their next meeting FDP will make this explicit formally. 

The Council letter to FDP (cc Care Commission) is also either duplicitous about the “independent review” or Council managers at the most senior level are still trying to mislead the Care Commission and possibly Elected Members by saying one thing to them and another to us.  We repeat there is no “independent review” and that Mr Alec Davidson is not leading such a review.  He was brought in, with our agreement at John Alexander’s suggestion, explicitly and only to offer advice from his experience, which the working and steering groups can either accept or reject. 

Perhaps Mr Davidson will now confirm on the record and inform Mr Haswell that this is the case and that he is not leading an independent review, but offering help and advice to the project groups, that is not binding in any way, and which we have welcomed.  Mr Haswell may then wish to correct his letter in that and other detail, as well as answering questions yet to be put to him based on his letter, before the next FDP meeting. 

Take note that if that is not the case then we have all been deliberately lied to and will take appropriate action after further discussion.  After agreements collectively reached in early 2008 with Mr J Alexander as SW Director there is NO “INDEPENDENT REVIEW”!

Out of courtesy we are copying this email to A Haswell, Alec Davidson and to the Project Manager, who is leading the DPCH “improvement project”, which is most certainly not an “independent review”.  This Council reply from Mr Haswell now puts in jeopardy any trust we have in the integrity of the Council and Social Work Director Alexander in setting up this project with us.  We are all working together to achieve the best outcome for all present and future learning disabled vulnerable adult service users who have and will continue in future to benefit hugely (as more than 150 have over ~30 yrs) from the complete model of care at DP.  The project groups will seek out to be informed and assisted by relevant experience from any source, like Mr Davidson.  His very helpful advice has been noted and we will seek similar input from others. 

You will note from our response, as two individual FDP trustees and welfare attorneys, that in addition to asking more questions to assist us all when FDP next meets, we meanwhile reject the Council letter as dissembling and partial.  The Appendix list is selective and omits the furniture and the loose glass reported in June 2009 by your Inspector, but ignored by the manager and only fixed in October after we were forced to complain to the media.   

Please also note furniture miraculously arrived shortly after the recent press report of the FDP complaint headlined, “uncaring & untrustworthy”.  Interestingly, Mr Haswell does not include reference to either in his reply, yet they were explicit items in the FDP February complaint.  We also question why Mr Haswell does not refer to the Council complaint appeal procedure, but instead refers us directly to the SPSO.  We shall propose at the next FDP meeting that action be taken, but why is the Council appeal procedure ignored as the next step, or does such an appeal no longer exist?  Perhaps the Council and Elected Members will answer this point? 

Who is the Officer responsible for complaints under the new fully independent procedure Mr Stevenson assured us was being operated from Jan 2010, in the light of past failures?   

We understand there is a further short report in the Galloway News today.  I certainly authorised the attached comment by name from me to the reporter concerned, who contacted me on Monday.  They may have edited this. I do not know being away helping our daughter.

Please also note that we query two items in the January Inspection report.  The manager has not raised with FDP the matter of meeting with residents, indeed the manager has not attended many recent FDP meetings at DP, as used to be the practice.  The FDP would be delighted to meet with residents at any time as a truly independent body, unlike UCI.  Indeed we have explicitly instructed that no representative from UCI shall meet with our relative to “communicate” given their hidden role in the Personalisation Board and the intended closure of the ARCs.  We note that Mr Davidson also sits on that board, to which we are denied representation.  We do not trust UCI to be independent being so heavily dependant, we believe, on Council / NHS public funding and their failure to reply to our correspondence in December 2009 concerning this and their role in the ARC closure plans.

Since the DP manager has failed to discuss this representation issue with FDP, but is suggesting to your inspector that we are no longer doing this, we sense more manipulation behind the scenes to subvert the 30 yr established role of FDP, because that charity really is independent and motivated, as unpaid volunteers, solely by the best interests of service users.  You may know that the FDP Treasurer was appointed by a resident as Welfare Attorney under the AWIA,. 

Secondly we dispute the claim by the manager that all requests for maintenance and repairs are promptly attended to.  As a matter of record this is not correct and he has personally failed to ensure that safety issues, like the loose glass and dilapidated furniture, were promptly attended to when pointed out to him by your inspector last June! 

We request that the January report is corrected and qualified in those sections, given that it is on the public record and mentions FDP and issues that are incorrect as a matter of record and fact.

We look forward to hearing further in due course and as expressed to the media reasonably expect that the Care Commission uses its teeth to correct matters, now it is demonstrated that the Council has mislead you.

Thank you.  Named Welfare Attorneys for a DP resident and individual volunteer FDP Trustees.