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.