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..