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

Posted: April 25th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News | Tags: ARC, CAB, Care Commission, Citizens Advice Bureau, complaints, honesty, incompetence, integrity, John Alexander, misleading press statement 1st April, SWIA, transparency, UCI

Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »

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.

Leave your feedback, post a comment here »

---