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: