UCI complaints latest. Chair Ms Irene Mungall’s dismissive reply 30/4 described as “inaccurate, dissembling spin and lies, a woefully inadequate reply” for an “inexcusable shambles of hubris, incompetence and mendacity, that ill behoves the Chief Executive (Ms Irene Mungall) of the Dumfries CAB.”

Date: 9^th May 2010 and delivered by email to the following action recipients plus many other cc including: press & media, MSPs and MPs, Elected Members, other carers, CIC, ASP & MAPPA, Mental Welfare Commission, Care Commission.

From:  Mr & Mrs ‘A’ of Dumfries.  As AWIA appointed attorneys.

For personal attention and action by:  Chair and Trustees UCI.  AND Ms Irene Mungall in her other role as Chief Executive of Dumfries CAS / CAB (see points  12 – 18 below)

AND Mr Judex Paul & Mr Paul Nolan D&G Council,

AND the Chief Executives of D&G Council & NHS D&G.  AND Investigating Officers at OSCR

All these recipients are asked to reply personally and by return to the questions now raised directly to them.

Re:  Our complaints, which include taking photographs without written permission, publishing after instruction not to do so and defacing a vulnerable adult’s identifiable image with scribbled black felt tip pen.

Please note and refer to the Dumfries & Galloway Standard News report – page 2 Weds 5^th May and note that this serious complaint, which amounts to abuse by UCI of a vulnerable adult, continues to be a matter of public record as this is the only possible way to hold unregulated companies like UCI to any form of account.

1. Despite our explicit request UCI failed to send a copy of Irene Mungall’s letter 30/4 to us by email.  In future please send a copy of everything to us at: email supplied. Also UCI has failed to supply a written copy by email of its independent complaints procedure and the appeal process.  Who properly and independently regulates UCI activities like this, which risks and involves alleged abuse of the rights of vulnerable adults to protection?  Only OSCR, because this registered company and commercial business UCI elected to seek ‘charity’ status?  If so that is hardly sufficient or effective regulation, but OSCR officers have been and are requested to fully investigate.
2. No reply from UCI to our initial response email sent 3/5 at 18:21.  Therefore we repeat the UCI “investigation” as reported 30/4 is wholly rejected.  It is inaccurate, dissembling and a woefully inadequate reply to our complaints.
3. Either UCI Trustees and staff do not understand the details of our complaints, or are choosing to ignore these to suit their own purposes of self justification.
4. To repeat, our complaints include: UCI failure to obtain informed written consent to take any pictures; UCI failure to acknowledge our complaint first made verbally by telephone on 12 April; UCI refusing to withdraw and destroy all unauthorised photographs and insulting and demeaning the person concerned by scribbling out his face in black felt tip, purely to save money and cover up a gross error.
5. To keep matters simple, we now focus on fundamental issues, the first being the requirement for informed written consent to take any pictures, let alone publish them.
6. Does Irene Mungall as Chair of UCI Trustees accept this is an obligation UCI is required to observe or not?  This is at the heart of the main complaints.
7. Please will UCI reply by return by email answering a simple, “Yes” or “No”.
8. If “Yes” then most of our complaints must be upheld forthwith and UCI are thus obliged to recall the Annual Reports and make appropriate and agreed reparation for all the distress and damage caused to Mr C and others.
9. If “No” then all action recipients must now explain how and why UCI as a company limited by guarantee is empowered to operate to very different standards than the public bodies that ‘primarily provide UCI funding’? Namely D&G Council & NHS, who have de facto control of UCI via its dependence upon them for income.
10. UCI has already been informed that Mr Judex Paul, Complaints Manager for D&G Council, has repeatedly stated that, like the Council and all others, UCI require informed written consent before taking photographs in this situation.
11. Judex Paul and Paul Nolan both have action copies of this email response to UCI.  Both are now urgently requested by return, as are the respective Chief Executives, to explicitly confirm this absolute requirement to UCI or they all must explain on the public record why, as UCI primary funders, the Council & NHS apparently exempt UCI from this fundamental right of privacy?
12. All others we have consulted assert that informed written consent is required, indeed two bodies, one the charitable trust who has given a small grant to UCI, actually suggested approaching the Dumfries CAS / CAB for both advice and possible conciliation.  A very sensible idea and suggestion.
13. However, neither appreciated that Ms Irene Mungall, as Chair UCI is also the Chief Executive of the Dumfries CAB, now fully exposed as a very unhelpful and serious conflict of interest.  When advised of this fact there was initial disbelief from those two bodies.  Isn’t it all just too cosy?
14. So we now ask Ms Mungall, as Chief Executive of the CAS / CAB, not as Chair UCI, what is the CAB position and advice on this core issue of informed written consent in relation to the photography of a child or vulnerable adult?  Especially where the photographer has negligently failed to establish the legal status and capacity of that adult from a properly qualified person?
15. Please would Ms Mungall now put the independent CAB advice on the public record or point us to where in the CAB database the answer is located.  CAB failure to do this and support the UCI position shall be founded upon.
16. That fundamental question needs to be answered before we get further bogged down with the detail of all the inaccurate dissembling spin and lies in the UCI “investigation” letter of 30^th April rejecting the complaint and blaming CIC and the “paid carers”.  We still await a CIC formal response to this and whether they accept the all the responsibility and blame now being put upon CIC by UCI, because the adult “was accompanied by a paid (CIC) carer”?  Heather Smith for CIC has a copy of this email and we still await the requested reply from the Chief Executive of CIC and contact from the associate Director from CIC Scotland, who said he would visit us as part of his investigation.  Is this now pre-empted by the unjustified UCI dismissal of our complaints and blaming CIC?
17. We must say, on the record, that all this inexcusable shambles of hubris, incompetence and mendacity ill behoves the Chief Executive (Ms Irene Mungall) of the CAB, which is an organisation usually perceived as impartial and just, being well informed about individual rights.  Most would usually expect the CAB, and especially the Chief Executive, to be very determined in upholding and asserting these rights.  We expect the CAB to protect the weaker and weakest individuals against the transgressions of bullying companies like UCI or local authorities, when trampling over the individuals’ rights.  We ask whether the CAS / CAB has lost its way in this case?

In order to conclude this damaging affair and hopefully resolve the main complaint issues, please may we have urgent written answers by email from all the action recipients within the next few days?

A very simple solution is for UCI to recall the Annual Report from all recipients, cease further distribution, destroy all copies and publicly apologise.  Why will UCI not do this?   Thank you.

Mr & Mrs A as Attorney for Mr C

PS.  Note that we have openly copied this to DGPPG and the press/media requesting that with suitable editing to protect the identity of vulnerable adults that this is placed in the public domain at: www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk It is a matter of public interest that all are fully aware of how UCI Trustees and employees of that business/company act and the conflict of interest with Dumfries Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) because of the dual role of Ms Irene Mungall. Also the “primary” funding and control of UCI income by D&G Council & NHS who de facto therefore ‘control’ UCI by virtue of this close financial relationship.  The matter of independent regulation is highly relevant.  The Care Commission and MWC Chief Executive should note this along with Elected Members and MSPs and MPs and provide us all with their reaction and comments..

The Friends of Dunmuir Park Scottish Charity SC017823 report good news

The following report was sent to the Care Commission and copied to relevant Council officers, Elected Members, MSps, MPs, carers and press/media contacts on May 2nd as a “Good News” story.  Attached was the FDP Annual Report and accounts also submitted to OSCR.  It is an interesting comparison to see what a real volunteer charity can actually achieve when constrasted with a company or business like UCI, which is fairly described as a ‘pseudo’ charity by comparison.  This was sent by Mrs Mary Sproat – Chair of Trustees of ‘The Friends of Dunmuir Park’.

Dear Mrs Reid and all other recipients, including Elected Members, MSPs, carers and media contacts. 

A good news story.  At the FDP Trustees’ meeting at DPCH on Thurs 29/4, with most residents present, the attached Annual Report was approved.  Since we noted the Care Commission announced inspection on 9 & 10 June it was resolved to inform you and the local community of another successful year directly and actively supporting the excellent and unmatched model of care that Dunmuir Park represents.  This is the result of 30 years of organic development at the heart of a local and very caring, supportive community.  This report for y/e 31 Jan 2010 is now being submitted to OSCR.  A copy is available at DPCH, but I’m afraid it’s only a modest 4pp of A4 ink jet produced personally by unpaid volunteers, not a printed glossy brochure. 

We can report another year of adding vital ‘extras’ to the quality of life of residents, respite service users and many others helped by outreach who, as peers and friends of the residents, are able to come to the discos and other events, which would otherwise not be possible but for the ‘extra mile’ of the dedicated front line care staff.  At Easter, and especially last Christmas in the icy weather, their sensitive support was invaluable.  FDP can provide funds and practical help, but that is worthless without the dedicated carers.  Thanks are also due to our local Castle Douglas Golf Club for hosting these events so well, the food is superb, but the DP carers cannot be praised and thanked enough.  It is a source of great regret to FDP that too often the carers do not receive the recognition and support they fully deserve from their Council managers, not least in terms of their working environment.  

As you can read in the Report, The Friends of Dunmuir Park is a charitable unincorporated association, which was formed 28 years ago.  The purpose or object of The Friends, as recorded in our constitution, is “to promote the welfare of Residents at Dunmuir Park Care Home, 49 Dunmuir Road Castle Douglas”, which is a registered residential Care Home owned and operated by Dumfries & Galloway Council.  To achieve this object The Friends “shall collect and receive monies and funds by ways of contributions and donations and to organise various fund raising events.”  Our constitution requires these funds “to be used for the mutual help and support of the Residents of Dunmuir Park e.g. Holidays, Outings, Birthdays, Christmas and any other action or extra items required for the well-being of the Residents, as determined by the committee.”   

You can see that funds of £4,138 were raised, whilst only incurring a total ‘admin’ charge of £19.  That means £4,119 of cash to be spent benefitting the Residents, including grants to enable holidays away; birthday and Christmas gifts; other ad hoc visits; Christmas, Easter and other Discos; social activities with friends & families and supplying TV ‘digiboxes’ to assist the digital switchover.  We supplement the necessary care costs with extras and do not and will not subsidise these.    

The FDP Committee must once again gratefully acknowledged with thanks the continuing active support and generosity of the local community whether by donations, fundraising or in many other intangible ways.  Our local Coop must be thanked for allowing us space to sell Xmas raffle tickets and the customers for buying them at such a difficult time.  The most touching are often maligned youngsters, some in school uniform, who buy a ticket, “because it’s for Dunmuir Park”.  They really understand, as do others who just give a donation and refuse to take a ticket.  It is both humbling and uplifting to realise that people do really care and we wish to thank them all.    

So, after 29 years the Friends continue to be very proud of the way Dunmuir Park has become and remains such a successful and long standing real working example of ‘care in and by the community’.  DP the most cost effective model of care whether evaluated in emotional, welfare, quality of life or purely economic terms.  The latter very relevant in today’s circumstances and DP is therefore very hard to better.  With necessary improvements and the further development of Dunmuir Park, we all look forward to another 30 years building upon this very strong foundation of dedicated work by the front line care staff, being extremely proud of the very many small ways in which the local people of Castle Douglas welcome, embrace and meaningfully include the most vulnerable in their midst, which so greatly contributes to their quality of life.  

We will be asking the Editor of The Galloway News to accept a Readers’ letter from FDP giving these thanks and would welcome reading a ‘good news’ story in the paper, in which any of this message and the Annual Report may be freely quoted.  We will asking if any one would like to join the FDP and lend a hand.  For we should all be very proud that such a beacon of good practice is still available to learning disabled adults in Dumfries & Galloway and that earlier misguided notions of closure were rightly defeated.  We must all ensure the same remains true for the excellent ARC day facilities.  Perhaps our elected representatives would take note of what can be achieved by real ‘hands on’ unpaid volunteers in the community and properly listen to our many expert voices.  Please note these do not require to be mediated or represented by other very expensive organisations, who purport to advocate.  FDP does not seek or receive any funds from the Council or NHS and volunteers meet their own expenses.  I will be available for the Care Commission Announced Inspection in June, together with other Trustees.  Thank you.  Mary Sproat  Chair FDP  

UCI, Council Officers, Elected Members and MSPs. Their responses – latest update – .

Latest update. The Coucil silence contines.  On 29 April UCI complaint was upheld by Irene Mungall, but no apology or explanation.  Also no UCI reply to earlier correspondence, which has been chased including the outstanding email of 21 Dec 2009, see earlier on this site.  On 28 April the only responses were from the SW Director John Alexander being two email receipts confirming that he has deleted at least two important email messages “without being read”. Some may conclude that does not appear to be a very professional way to deal with important correspondence from those he is meant to serve, whatever his personal opinion may be of the content or the sender. It might just be possible that valid and correct points are being made and there are important questions to answer? Is the lack of response and answers from Officers with the approval of the Chief Executive, who is, we are told by Elected Members, back working part time two days per week. Is this correct?

After UCI complaint upheld we have asked Irene Mungall for confirmation when Morven Campbell and/or Carolyn Little are recalling the publications and published photos for which they have blamed a CIC manager claiming she gave permission, which she firmly denies!  Since neither has any locus to give any permission for a vulnerable adult with a welfare attorney, this is a very feeble and desperate weasel like excuse from UCI, a charity with such lofty objectives who purport to give the disabled “a voice”.  Meanwhile they have taken an excessive time to put matters right and so increased the distress.  Please report to DGPPG if you have a copy of any UCI publication with unauthorised photos that is not promptly recalled. 

Irene Mungall, Chief Executive of Dumfries CAB, and also UCI Chair of Trustees has been asked for a full response to all outstanding correspondence “forthwith”, including the apparently misleading and incorrect Financial Report for Annual Review.  See earlier posts for details.   No further information about the CIC investigation by a senior independant and external associate director.  CIC should be as concerned and angry as anyone that UCI is seeking to traduce their reputation by trying to shift the blame to them.  But then pehaps it was ill advised and ill considered to get into bed with those who are not experts and properly trained by agreeing to a care home “audit” by what some may now clearly perceive as the less than competent amateurs at UCI. 

Perhaps it’s better to leave “Audits” to the real experts, like the Care Commission, and effective communication to  unpaid, experienced and genuine volunteers, who do not have an axe to grind and an income to protect.  When will UCI behave with decency and integrity in this affair, starting with an apology?  They have already admitted their guilt by agreeing weeks ago they did not have proper written permission.  That’s why they blacked out a face in felt tip as a literal ‘cover up’, confirming they had destroyed the photos.  So why did they continue this charade?  UCI should immediately recall and destroy the publications, before causing yet more real damage.

No other answers from the Officers, Elected Members or MSPs. Marcia Ramsay, Director Care Commission, confirmed her return on Mon 26-April and intention to talk to Henry Mathias this week, promising a substantive reply very soon after, but is now out again from today until 3 May.  OSCR has acknowledged the complaint about UCI and is investigating, but further complaints have been intimated, including the Financial Report.

DGPPG is not yet aware that any of the black felt tip ‘defaced’ UCI Annual Reports have been recalled.  Those affected remain concerned and angry that Ms Irene Mungall Chair of UCI Trustees, but also Chief Executive Dumfries Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), did not minimise the distress caused to a vulnerable adult and his family by the UCI actions and breach of privacy first complained of more than two weeks ago.  Also Ms Mungall for UCI has not  yet apologised in any way. The UCI www site is still misleading and does not report that complaints are now outstanding and under investigation by OSCR.  Up to 23 April the previous ”news” statement explicitly and falsely stated there were no complaints.    Why is a charity publicly dissembling in this way? 

Ms Mungall’s only other significant response has been to request a copy of a power of attorney, which perhaps indicates her real priority and caring attitude, since she and CAB will know that the poa is registered at the Office of the Public Guardian and available for public verification.  It does not appear that UCI had any intention of minimising the distress and damage this ‘charity’ has caused by taking and publishing unauthorised photographs of vulnerable learning disabled adults, without seeking proper written permission.  Or is the “legal advice” Paul Nolan at D&G Council says UCI are taking, effectively at public expense, a further attempt to weasel out of the situation and evade responsibility?  We await further information which will be posted when available.

UCI complaints. Is the UCI Annual Financial Report correct? Clarification to the carer who wrote to Ms I Mungall 30-Apr at 20:36

Hi.  Thanks for yours 29/4 at 22:08 and cc to IM 30/4 at 20:36.  I had written a note in reply earlier this morning and circulated it at 14:12.  Hopefully it is clear, especially about the financial report.  Look at it with the attached xls file (see data below) and hopefully you’ll soon see what I am saying on elementary analysis.  See if you or anyone else you ask can understand it?  Hopefully it’s not just me?  I thought I’d left all this behind long ago, but with the ARC fiasco apparently not!  I blame the education system for the woeful lack of numeracy (and common sense).   

Presumably there should be at least £901 in costs, presently ‘missing’, in order to support the presented ‘bottom line’ of £11,369 excess of expenditure over income?  Perhaps that is the missing publications figure?  Who knows?  Why no liabilities?  Why no accruals? etc etc.  How can this garbage possibly be defended as a properly audited and approved financial statement for a £100K business that is intended to inform the general public and the funders?  It does not appear meet OSCR criteria.     

That UCI Annual Report 2009 should never have passed proof reading by those responsible in UCI, especially the Chair who should have signed it off at the relevant board meeting.  Who was there, where are the minutes?  But are they actually competent to do this?  Hopefully Tom Marchbank Treasurer will reply.  That Annual Report needs recalled and corrected.  Has this actually gone to OSCR?  

Perhaps in addition to the requested and outstanding full accounts, Ms Mungall Chair UCI will also supply their latest Companies House abbreviated accounts: Company No. SC234241 Date of Incorporation 18/07/2002    PRI/LBG/NSC (Private, Limited by guarantee, no share capital, use of ‘Limited’ exemption) Nature of Business:  SIC(03)):  7487 – Other business activities.  See link:   

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/4496cc46c104352bde15186b92166a6d/compdetails  

Since sending the earlier email we’ve just had a very distressed Mrs A on the phone saying a Recorded Delivery letter had been delivered after lunch from UCI, as you know their rural post is late.  Apparently it is long but in essence Ms Mungall rejects the complaint about the photographs.  I’ve suggested that they take a copy up to you and drop one in to us tomorrow, catching us before we leave for our daughter’s in Derbys.  We’ll have email access.  Apparently UCI even question capacity! 

This situation will go from bad to worse, because in the absence of the long requested UCI complaints policy it is not clear what the UCI appeal procedure is, if indeed there is one!  I suspect UCI will not have a properly independent appeal process, so a non independent internal complaint ‘investigation’ cannot be reviewed.  Pure ‘Kafka’, just like the Council, a morally corrupt process to defend the indefensible and manufacture bureaucracy.  As you know we have all been there before and still are.

We wholly agree there should be a meeting and JA et al should be invited + press etc as before in Dec.  In response to his email to me 22/4 asking to meet I am still waiting for dates from him and did ask if he would convene that meeting he promised on 16 Dec 2009, but then reneged and subtly changing this in his version of the ‘notes’ circulated much later.  But the contemporary press report is accurate, (added note: see 21 Dec on this site.)

Life would be so much simpler if he would meet under your chairmanship at a meeting we all had time to prepare for.  We would support that such a meeting be convened as the ARC issue and ‘personalisation’ has not gone away, recall he said ARCs are “not cost effective” and promised all the figures, plus all the other issues, including the FDP complaint.  Understand you met Mr & Mrs A by chance yesterday in Dumfries and talked about all this, and that she too agrees with a meeting.  Perhaps we can get some MSPs and the new MP when elected to attend as well, to give impartial gravitas?  RB was always very supportive in this way and it should be cross party and non political. 

Many carers are very busy and so the meeting has to have focus and utility.  Perhaps we could also get someone from the Scot Gov who is responsible for the Self Directed Support (personalisation) pilot to speak more about that and how ARCs could close if SDS means support withers.  We’d be very interested to hear Alex Fergusson’s & Alasdair Morgan’s take on all that has happened and Mr & Mrs A know him too.  AF & AM & RB were hugely helpful in 2006, so would they agree to attend a meeting, given sufficient notice?   It would then be difficult for JA to continue to ignore us as he has done since end January.  There is still a deafening silence to all that is outstanding.  Does this help? 

The data in the attached spreadsheet is reproduced here.  Compare to the UCI Annual Report 2009: