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.