Reply to ‘Named carer’ re UCI “blatently (sic) dishonest” and request for Elected Members to investigate and act
Posted: April 30th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: NewsComments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
To named carer & IM at UCI, cc OSCR, DGPPG, media, Care Commission, SWIA, CIC, P Nolan+Judex Paul+John Alexander+Heather Collington D&G Council+Cllrs: John Dougan+Patsy Gilroy+Ivor Hyslop+Denis Male+Ronnie Nicholson+Rob Davidson+Andrew Wood+Peter Duncan+Ian Blake
Note on Copy OSCR FAO Investigation Officers - Jan Bruce further complaint re: UCI SC 031853
Note: Elected Members please note the detail and the explicit request for your investigation and action.
Dear named carer. Your email to Ms Mungall Chair UCI (and also Chief Executive of Dumfries CAS/CAB) yesterday 30/4 at 20:36 very accurately describes what is going on and we support all you write. No doubt others involved and caught up in what you rightly say results from hubris, inflated egos and lack of proper accountability will also agree and say so, in due course.
All should note that Mr Judex Paul, the D&G Council SW Complaints Manager, who clearly stated in person at a meeting on 21/4 that he is a qualified Social Worker and lawyer, also then clearly said, as confirmed by Mrs H Collington, Acting Senior Social Worker, that UCI require WRITTEN PERMISSION to take let alone publish a photograph of a vulnerable learning disabled adult. UCI do not have that permission and never sought it. When the properly appointed welfare attorneys, as known to COC, first complained by telephone to UCI around 12 April and requested withdrawal, they were clearly told by UCI that the CIC Manager had given all necessary permission, which it is understood CIC flatly deny.
These failures by UCI to follow their stated objects and failures of due process are creating disputes that OSCR should find as “good reasons to believe that the dispute is putting charity assets at risk or endangering the charity’s ability to meet its charitable objects”. Also UCI is not reporting as OSCR require and not providing information on request, ref email 21 Dec 2009, as it is obliged to do. Please will OSCR add this clarification to our outstanding complaint, now under investigation.
You may wish to support this as another individual. E: info@oscr.org.uk
Concerning your 2nd paragraph there is no doubt about funding. You will find that in the smallest of print ‘hidden away’ at the foot of page 4 of the offensive ‘blacked out’ UCI Annual Report 2009, but improperly set apart from the Financial Report and under a distracting large red banner with the Contact details, is the following statement, here reproduced in large print:
UCI is funded primarily by NHS/LA in Dumfries and Galloway
We will formally ask Elected Members to investigate and review this UCI funding, how it is approved and whether it provides ‘Best Value’, given that the Council has a big budget shortfall and is cutting actual front line services with a directly negative impact upon the disabled. UCI appears to represent up to £100,000 of public funds, which we say should now be fully justified.
So there is no doubt of the ‘piper’, who must implicitly if not explicitly, call the tune. This type of arrangement appears to carry great risks of degenerating into the situation that we now witness, especially as the D&G Council (and NHS?) commissioning manger Mr Paul Nolan responsible for funding UCI like ‘Pontius Pilate’ appears to wash his hands of the matter. See attached PN emails Frid 23/4 concerning the serious complaints.
This will not do, because there is no doubt where de facto control lies. UCI is not an independent volunteer ‘charity’, but a £100,000+ company, a commercial activity or small business with charity status, “primarily funded by NHS/LA”. This is not an ‘arms length’ activity. Look at: http://www.oscr.org.uk/CharityIndexDetails.aspx?id=SC031853 and you will see OSCR report Charity SC 031853 (UCI) as “Constitutional Form – Company”
OSCR also states: “OSCR does not keep a register of Scottish Charity Trustees. This is not one of our statutory functions or something that we are resourced to do. Information about Scottish Charities should be available from the trustees’ report of the charity’s annual accounts. Please contact the charity directly using the above search to find this information.”. We have so asked and failed to get the information from UCI.
Note the Annual Report does not list the Trustees, misquotes their Scottish Charity No. and has an incomprehensible Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss account, which appears to present the wrong figures. This is despite spending £1,002 of public money on “Accountancy fees”. I shall write separately about the financial report to explain this. To avoid doubt, I am not now suggesting or implying any financial impropriety, because UCI has failed to send their accounts necessary for a detailed study, but highlighting lack of understanding and basic competence in presenting the necessary information in the correct format that is comprehensible. In short the figures do not add up, see attached scanned image of page 4 and look at the two tables.
As but one point of detail how do “Net current assets £44,890” transform to “Net assets and Total Funds £35,386” when Liabilities (Creditors) only appear to be (£601)? Also the P&L as presented is not comprehensible. As a point of information please will UCI tell all of us what “Sessional Fees of £18,619” comprise, bearing in mind this category of spend, primarily of our cash, is second only to £53,252 for Wages and NI?
This Annual Report 2009 with the unauthorised photograph blacked out in felt tip and an apparently inadequate Financial Report with no Trustees listed etc. etc., should be withdrawn forthwith, whilst the wasted costs for all this should not be paid for with our cash, being denied to the disabled through budget cuts. Why is all this not being properly scrutinised by those responsible in the Council and how much other waste of this sort is going on, hidden behind the scenes. As we provide the taxes we have a right to ask Elected Members carry out their duty to represent us and hold officers properly to account. Please will they now do so.
The misleading Financial Report appears to be yet another manifestation of the systemic UCI failures that cause serious failures, like not seeking or obtaining the necessary informed written permission on behalf of a learning disabled vulnerable adult before taking and publishing unauthorised photographs, despite being asked in a telephone complaint not to do so, before the fallacious Annual Report was then deliberately distributed. We have no doubt the self serving officers of UCI will find every possible spin and weasel worded excuses to frustrate any complaint and blame others, like CIC. Do you wish to comment further on this latest information? Mr & Mrs B
On Fri, 30/4/10, Named carer wrote:
Dear Ms. Mungall, I am writing to you because I am very concerned about your response to this entire matter with respect to the rights of vulnerable adults and their parents/carers. As a charity, UCI have responsibilities to those they profess to work on behalf of, in this case, users and carers. As a carer myself, I am appalled beyond words at the behaviour of yourself and your colleagues in response to what is a very serious charge. “Alleged” unauthorised photo? You heard directly from the family that it had not been authorised and yet you used it in your literature and as far as we know are still distributing it. Are you indeed in the business of interfering with the legal rights of vulnerable adults and those who have legal powers on their behalf? Everything I have seen in the course of this whole sorry saga says that is exactly what has happened here. There is no doubt that users and carers in Dumfries and Galloway are in dire need of a champion charity to put their needs top of mind in an uncertain budgetary environment. What you seem to be doing with your organisation is perverting the intent of your own charter. Is that how charities are run nowadays? Because I can assure you, I would not come within a country mile of your organisation if I found myself in need of help, advice or support, and I would tell everyone I know (and I know quite a few people who would potentially be served by your “charity”) to steer clear of you.
If you are indeed partly funded by DG Council, then I am doubly offended. The public purse – my tax contributions – are funding your folly. More’s the pity…but rest assured that I have my own complaint procedure which I will be pursuing on that front.
Make no mistake, many many people are watching this situation and the way you have handled it, and I truly believe your organisation’s reputation will suffer badly in the long run. You still have time to redeem the situation, make apologies, withdraw the offending documents and provide proof of your corrected actions. I urge you to do the right thing and not be a victim of your own hubris. Focus on your charter, not your ego. Admit that a mistake was made and make things right. You may not like how it feels now, but it will serve you and your organisation much better than what you have done up to now.
For the purposes of your process, you can consider this an official complaint against U.C.I. Named carer/
— On Fri, 30/4/10, userandcarer1@aol.com <userandcarer1@aol.com> wrote:
From: userandcarer1@aol.com <userandcarer1@aol.com>
Subject: Re: UCI complaint upheld letter 28 April delivered by Recorded Delivery today around 13:30
To:
Cc: dgppg@dumfries-galloway.org.uk, various other carers, sgillespie@s-un.co.uk, darchibald@s-un.co.uk, debbie.muir@bbc.co.uk, pamandian@itv.com, info@oscr.org.uk, crobertson@s-un.co.uk, Marcia.Ramsay@carecommission.com, Paul.Nolan@dumgal.gov.uk, Judex.Paul@dumgal.gov.uk, Heather.Smith@c-i-c.co.uk, John.Dougan@dumgal.gov.uk
Date: Friday, 30 April, 2010, 5:10
Dear Mr.B,
I am somewhat surprised by your blatently dishonest email message. I would like to point out that the complaint that was upheld was yours in relation to a UCI Trustee and not regarding an alleged unauthorised photo.
Please withdraw your email.
I Mungall
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Leave a Reply