UCI – how they correspond and react to serious and upsetting complaints. Is this acceptable, let alone professional?

Email sent 23/4 at 01:41.   Note to OSCR.   Please FW this message FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

Good Morning to the recipients listed.  (those listed below + Chief Exec D&G Council, John Burns NHS, OSCR, and the Secretary R S Macdonald Charitable Trust, as UCI funders.)

We received 11 copies of the attached email from Hazel Simpson sent between 19:54 & 19:57 on 22/4 nearly 6 hours ago.  We would like to thank her for sending these 11 messages, but have to say we are rather bemused.  

Is Hazel Simpson part of UCI, since she appears to be connected in some way?  Because it seems Carolyn Little sent UCI complaint messages to the Chair Irene Mungall and the three others, including HS.  It’s all very unclear, because C Little’s email circulation list is enormous, with multiple duplications.  Is this a UCI communication and circulation list?  The first four names, reproduced exactly as they appear on CL email, are:    

Irene Mungall <IreneMungall@dumfriescab.casonline.org.uk>; HAZEL SIMPSON <lhtsimpson@btinternet.com>; Gail Rhind <gailrhindnsfs@aol.co.uk>; Angela Cameron <angelacameron@turningpointscotland.com>;

 The first name we recognise, but not the following three.  Are all, like Irene Mungall, part of UCI?  Perhaps other Trustees?  If so this is not our experience of how a responsible Trustee or charity worker would normally be expected to behave.  

Irene Mungall is the Chair of UCI Trustees and her email address appears to be that of Dumfries Citizens Advice Bureau.  Please will she and the other three please introduce themselves to us and explain their roles.

Hazel Simpson wrote 22/4 at 19:54/7: 

“I like this one! So helpful of them to place all their pseudo-literate documents in context.  I do hope you’re preparing to grovel!  By the way, how do you provide evidence that you have destroyed something? Would a pile of ash satisfy them?”

 We are not quite sure what all this means or what it adds to the complaint?  Is this an official UCI response?  

Perhaps the UCI Chair could explain this to us and to the UCI funders?  Is this how UCI conducts its communications and treats a very serious complaint?  

Judex Paul actually did say that evidence of destruction should be provided, but not perhaps “a pile of ash”.   Confirmation from a responsible officer of recycling would perhaps be more sensible and appropriate?  Please would Hazel Simpson explain this comment and her role in this serious complaint?    

We look forward to hearing from you early on Friday, noting Mr & Mrs A are quite reasonably expecting a substantive response and confirmation of the document recall before close of business on Friday.  Thank you.  

DGPPG Note:  there was no reply on Friday or to date.  If any reader wishes to have a copy of  the actual Hazel Simpson email to verify what is reported here, then please email DGPPG with that request and your email, or click on the link and post a comment or reply in the box below.   As soon as DGPPG are notified of any reply from UCI or HS, then the information will be posted here.  Many are very surprised that the UCI Annual Report, a 4pp glossy brochure with the literally ‘defaced’ photograph on the front page scribbled out in black felt tip, does not list the UCI Trustees.  Many thought this was a requirement of good practice as set out by OSCR, the charity regulator.  As yet no one in DGPPG knows who all the current UCI Trustees are.  The Chair is identified; she is also the Chief Executive of the Dumfries CAB.  UCI shares the CAB offices 81-85 Irish Street.  If anyone reading this has a list of all the current UCI Trustees, please post a comment and inform us. If Hazel Simpson wishes to explain or expand on her reply to Carolyn Little, then DGPPG would be delighted to publish her response on this site – just post a comment or reply, especially if she is a Trustee.