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..

The Friends of Dunmuir Park Scottish Charity SC017823 report good news

The following report was sent to the Care Commission and copied to relevant Council officers, Elected Members, MSps, MPs, carers and press/media contacts on May 2nd as a “Good News” story.  Attached was the FDP Annual Report and accounts also submitted to OSCR.  It is an interesting comparison to see what a real volunteer charity can actually achieve when constrasted with a company or business like UCI, which is fairly described as a ‘pseudo’ charity by comparison.  This was sent by Mrs Mary Sproat – Chair of Trustees of ‘The Friends of Dunmuir Park’.

Dear Mrs Reid and all other recipients, including Elected Members, MSPs, carers and media contacts. 

A good news story.  At the FDP Trustees’ meeting at DPCH on Thurs 29/4, with most residents present, the attached Annual Report was approved.  Since we noted the Care Commission announced inspection on 9 & 10 June it was resolved to inform you and the local community of another successful year directly and actively supporting the excellent and unmatched model of care that Dunmuir Park represents.  This is the result of 30 years of organic development at the heart of a local and very caring, supportive community.  This report for y/e 31 Jan 2010 is now being submitted to OSCR.  A copy is available at DPCH, but I’m afraid it’s only a modest 4pp of A4 ink jet produced personally by unpaid volunteers, not a printed glossy brochure. 

We can report another year of adding vital ‘extras’ to the quality of life of residents, respite service users and many others helped by outreach who, as peers and friends of the residents, are able to come to the discos and other events, which would otherwise not be possible but for the ‘extra mile’ of the dedicated front line care staff.  At Easter, and especially last Christmas in the icy weather, their sensitive support was invaluable.  FDP can provide funds and practical help, but that is worthless without the dedicated carers.  Thanks are also due to our local Castle Douglas Golf Club for hosting these events so well, the food is superb, but the DP carers cannot be praised and thanked enough.  It is a source of great regret to FDP that too often the carers do not receive the recognition and support they fully deserve from their Council managers, not least in terms of their working environment.  

As you can read in the Report, The Friends of Dunmuir Park is a charitable unincorporated association, which was formed 28 years ago.  The purpose or object of The Friends, as recorded in our constitution, is “to promote the welfare of Residents at Dunmuir Park Care Home, 49 Dunmuir Road Castle Douglas”, which is a registered residential Care Home owned and operated by Dumfries & Galloway Council.  To achieve this object The Friends “shall collect and receive monies and funds by ways of contributions and donations and to organise various fund raising events.”  Our constitution requires these funds “to be used for the mutual help and support of the Residents of Dunmuir Park e.g. Holidays, Outings, Birthdays, Christmas and any other action or extra items required for the well-being of the Residents, as determined by the committee.”   

You can see that funds of £4,138 were raised, whilst only incurring a total ‘admin’ charge of £19.  That means £4,119 of cash to be spent benefitting the Residents, including grants to enable holidays away; birthday and Christmas gifts; other ad hoc visits; Christmas, Easter and other Discos; social activities with friends & families and supplying TV ‘digiboxes’ to assist the digital switchover.  We supplement the necessary care costs with extras and do not and will not subsidise these.    

The FDP Committee must once again gratefully acknowledged with thanks the continuing active support and generosity of the local community whether by donations, fundraising or in many other intangible ways.  Our local Coop must be thanked for allowing us space to sell Xmas raffle tickets and the customers for buying them at such a difficult time.  The most touching are often maligned youngsters, some in school uniform, who buy a ticket, “because it’s for Dunmuir Park”.  They really understand, as do others who just give a donation and refuse to take a ticket.  It is both humbling and uplifting to realise that people do really care and we wish to thank them all.    

So, after 29 years the Friends continue to be very proud of the way Dunmuir Park has become and remains such a successful and long standing real working example of ‘care in and by the community’.  DP the most cost effective model of care whether evaluated in emotional, welfare, quality of life or purely economic terms.  The latter very relevant in today’s circumstances and DP is therefore very hard to better.  With necessary improvements and the further development of Dunmuir Park, we all look forward to another 30 years building upon this very strong foundation of dedicated work by the front line care staff, being extremely proud of the very many small ways in which the local people of Castle Douglas welcome, embrace and meaningfully include the most vulnerable in their midst, which so greatly contributes to their quality of life.  

We will be asking the Editor of The Galloway News to accept a Readers’ letter from FDP giving these thanks and would welcome reading a ‘good news’ story in the paper, in which any of this message and the Annual Report may be freely quoted.  We will asking if any one would like to join the FDP and lend a hand.  For we should all be very proud that such a beacon of good practice is still available to learning disabled adults in Dumfries & Galloway and that earlier misguided notions of closure were rightly defeated.  We must all ensure the same remains true for the excellent ARC day facilities.  Perhaps our elected representatives would take note of what can be achieved by real ‘hands on’ unpaid volunteers in the community and properly listen to our many expert voices.  Please note these do not require to be mediated or represented by other very expensive organisations, who purport to advocate.  FDP does not seek or receive any funds from the Council or NHS and volunteers meet their own expenses.  I will be available for the Care Commission Announced Inspection in June, together with other Trustees.  Thank you.  Mary Sproat  Chair FDP  

UCI, Council Officers, Elected Members and MSPs. Their responses – latest update – .

Latest update. The Coucil silence contines.  On 29 April UCI complaint was upheld by Irene Mungall, but no apology or explanation.  Also no UCI reply to earlier correspondence, which has been chased including the outstanding email of 21 Dec 2009, see earlier on this site.  On 28 April the only responses were from the SW Director John Alexander being two email receipts confirming that he has deleted at least two important email messages “without being read”. Some may conclude that does not appear to be a very professional way to deal with important correspondence from those he is meant to serve, whatever his personal opinion may be of the content or the sender. It might just be possible that valid and correct points are being made and there are important questions to answer? Is the lack of response and answers from Officers with the approval of the Chief Executive, who is, we are told by Elected Members, back working part time two days per week. Is this correct?

After UCI complaint upheld we have asked Irene Mungall for confirmation when Morven Campbell and/or Carolyn Little are recalling the publications and published photos for which they have blamed a CIC manager claiming she gave permission, which she firmly denies!  Since neither has any locus to give any permission for a vulnerable adult with a welfare attorney, this is a very feeble and desperate weasel like excuse from UCI, a charity with such lofty objectives who purport to give the disabled “a voice”.  Meanwhile they have taken an excessive time to put matters right and so increased the distress.  Please report to DGPPG if you have a copy of any UCI publication with unauthorised photos that is not promptly recalled. 

Irene Mungall, Chief Executive of Dumfries CAB, and also UCI Chair of Trustees has been asked for a full response to all outstanding correspondence “forthwith”, including the apparently misleading and incorrect Financial Report for Annual Review.  See earlier posts for details.   No further information about the CIC investigation by a senior independant and external associate director.  CIC should be as concerned and angry as anyone that UCI is seeking to traduce their reputation by trying to shift the blame to them.  But then pehaps it was ill advised and ill considered to get into bed with those who are not experts and properly trained by agreeing to a care home “audit” by what some may now clearly perceive as the less than competent amateurs at UCI. 

Perhaps it’s better to leave “Audits” to the real experts, like the Care Commission, and effective communication to  unpaid, experienced and genuine volunteers, who do not have an axe to grind and an income to protect.  When will UCI behave with decency and integrity in this affair, starting with an apology?  They have already admitted their guilt by agreeing weeks ago they did not have proper written permission.  That’s why they blacked out a face in felt tip as a literal ‘cover up’, confirming they had destroyed the photos.  So why did they continue this charade?  UCI should immediately recall and destroy the publications, before causing yet more real damage.

No other answers from the Officers, Elected Members or MSPs. Marcia Ramsay, Director Care Commission, confirmed her return on Mon 26-April and intention to talk to Henry Mathias this week, promising a substantive reply very soon after, but is now out again from today until 3 May.  OSCR has acknowledged the complaint about UCI and is investigating, but further complaints have been intimated, including the Financial Report.

DGPPG is not yet aware that any of the black felt tip ‘defaced’ UCI Annual Reports have been recalled.  Those affected remain concerned and angry that Ms Irene Mungall Chair of UCI Trustees, but also Chief Executive Dumfries Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), did not minimise the distress caused to a vulnerable adult and his family by the UCI actions and breach of privacy first complained of more than two weeks ago.  Also Ms Mungall for UCI has not  yet apologised in any way. The UCI www site is still misleading and does not report that complaints are now outstanding and under investigation by OSCR.  Up to 23 April the previous ”news” statement explicitly and falsely stated there were no complaints.    Why is a charity publicly dissembling in this way? 

Ms Mungall’s only other significant response has been to request a copy of a power of attorney, which perhaps indicates her real priority and caring attitude, since she and CAB will know that the poa is registered at the Office of the Public Guardian and available for public verification.  It does not appear that UCI had any intention of minimising the distress and damage this ‘charity’ has caused by taking and publishing unauthorised photographs of vulnerable learning disabled adults, without seeking proper written permission.  Or is the “legal advice” Paul Nolan at D&G Council says UCI are taking, effectively at public expense, a further attempt to weasel out of the situation and evade responsibility?  We await further information which will be posted when available.

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:

Carer’s response and further complaint to Ms Irene Mungall Chair UCI re failure to get written permission from a vulnerable adult

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 of DGPPG

Reply to ‘Named carer’ re UCI “blatently (sic) dishonest” and request for Elected Members to investigate and act

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 2^nd 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

“Call Kaye” BBC Radio Scotland Tues 27-April. Information for all carers

Earlier this week on Tuesday 27/4 there was an interesting discussion about learning disability, especially autism & Aspergers.  Radio Scotland ‘Call Kaye’.  If you didn’t catch programme then it’s still on iplayer from the BBC www until Monday.  For program & more details see:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r3zl7    There is a ‘Call Kaye’ FaceBook discussion board and you can read & post comments.  To access follow the link below:

http://www.facebook.com/n/?topic.php&uid=401973844553&topic=15010&post=87659&mid=243b3e6G5af34dc02813G1fc1fG21&n_m=dgppg%40dumfries-galloway.org.uk#post87659

Also today we received  literature requested from RESCARE an English charity est 1984 concerned with the learning disabled.  They used to have a presence in Glasgow & Edinburgh, but apparently that died with the hospital closures some time ago.  Very active in England though and facing same issues re day centers (ARCs) and choice.   Look at www.rescare.org.uk  

We only heard of them recently by chance, but they understand and argue for real ‘Choice’, not ideology. Reading their latest April 2010 Newsletter (Resnews…) with literature just received, we wish we had known of this charity when fighting the closure of Dunmuir Park in 2006 and earlier in 1999/2000. The arguments we put forward, which were ignored by the ‘experts’, are all there with evidence and it’s worth reading.  This is a very useful resource for facts, figures, arguments and ammunition, which will be very necessary in the light of JA’s determination to close the ARCs, to save cash.  

You may wish to contact RESCARE and ask them for a copy of their publications.  If you can get anything on line have a read otherwise get on the circulation list.  Why are we not told of such sources of real support, as compared to Enable Scotland or ‘charities’ like UCI, who are in businesses mainly for their own (self) interests, a point RECSARE make very strongly along with justified criticism of the ideologically driven ‘experts’ who always  ‘know best’.   RESCARE very much argue that one size does not fit all, whether it be residential or day care.  Whilst they are an English focused charity the principles are the same and it’s useful ammunition as a resource.  After all why do we need to rediscover the wheel?    If you think this is helpful and useful then please share all this with other carers and your local ARC groups. 

Please circulate or post details of any other meeting(s) yet proposed by JA at other ARCs re the future closure plans.  We shall be trying to organise a DGPPG meeting in the next 4-6 weeks as the way JA is trying to ignore us and pretend we do not exist cannot be allowed to continue.  We know he wants to divide and rule, but it’s in everyone’s interest not to let that happen.  Anyway he has a statutory to consult when required to do so and the present silly games should be stopped by the Chief Executive.

UCI Uphold complaint

DGPPG has received the following copy email from ‘Mr E’ and UCI letter from the Chair Irene Mungall dated Weds 28 April which says:  “Dear ‘Mr E.’  Re: Complaint regarding behaviour of board member of UCI.  Your complaint regarding the above has been upheld and the matter addressed.  Yours sincerely Irene Mungall  Chair UCI  Scottish Charity SCO 31853″ sic.      

Attention Ms Irene Mungall Chair UCI      Dear Ms Mungall.  I confirm the attached letter was delivered by recorded delivery this afternoon.  Thank you very much.    I am pleased to read that you have upheld my complaint about the action of UCI in relation to the unauthorised photography of a vulnerable adult without necessary written permission and the wide publication of this with his head ‘defaced’ in scribbled black felt tip. 

But unfortunately your letter does not detail the action you have taken, in particular the recall and confirmed destruction of the defaced UCI Annual Report 2009 plus the UCI ‘Audit’ of CIC and the action taken with regard to those responsible. 

Also there is no apology or explanation, which given the circumstances do you agree appears very curmudgeonly?  Indeed your letter is very abbreviated or curt and rather opaque, given the very sensitive subject matter. 

May I also point out and again complain formally that UCI has still not supplied a written copy of your complaints procedure and policy by email, as first requested some weeks ago.  Why has this not been sent long ago?   Also UCI has not corrected the latest dissembling ‘news’ statement on the UCI www site dated 23 April, after your earlier statement was shown to be factually misleading, because complaints had been received by UCI, contrary to what was written.  May we request that UCI either put up the whole truth as ‘news’ or omit any such statement entirely?  Not least because UCI has been unable to supply its written complaints procedure and policy.  Also we again ask why are all Trustees not listed on that site and, as a matter of routine, in your Annual Report?    

Finally concerning your UCI ‘headed paperwork’ as used for this letter.  As was pointed out in a much earlier email, the Scottish Charity No is not SCO 31853, as you wrongly display it.  It is: SC 031853, a six digit number.  A charity concerned with ‘communications’ should get the details correct, because anyone trying to search on the OSC www site will encounter errors trying a five digit number.

Along with Mr & Mrs A I look forward to receiving your further comments and an email copy of the established UCI complaints procedure & policy, confirming when this was first written and published.  As also previously requested please ensure any correspondence is copied to me by email, as we may well not be able to access our post and may not see letters like the attached sent by mail.  Also email is quicker and more reliable.   Many thanks once again.  Mr E. 

It is understood a later addendum requested a reply to the message sent 23 April 2010, including the outstanding email of 21 Dec 2009, posted on that date earlier on this site.  For some inexplicable reason, since UCI is a charity, the Trustees appear reluctant to reply to reasonable requests and questions, including listing those Trustees by name, which is required of all charities. 

That addendum PS said:  

Dear Ms Mungall.  Further to my reply sent today at 15:04 I intended to attach this PS asking you to reply to the requests made in the message written jointly with Mr & Mrs A and sent to you personally on 23/4 at 11:42.  To avoid any doubt we attach a further copy.  To date you have not acknowledged this message, let alone replied to answer any of the questions or implement any of the simple requested actions.  Please will you do so, or ensure as Chair that someone within UCI does so, forthwith.  To avoid any doubt and for your convenience, a further copy is attached    Please ensure any reply is copied by email, without fail.   This of course includes the requested reply to the email explicitly sent to the Trustees on 21 Dec 2009, then being addressed and delivered to five recipients at UCI viz:  ‘carolynlittle@userandcarer.co.uk’; ‘morvencampbell@userandcarer.co.uk’; ‘lina@userandcarer.co.uk’; ‘userandcarer1@aol.com’; ‘johnrobertson@userandcarer.co.uk’ . 

Please can you explain why this email was not replied to, yet a spurious and misleading message, perhaps referring to this email, was posted on the UCI www site and only updated 23 April?   We look forward to a comprehensive reply from UCI shortly.   Many thanks once again.  Named joint and several Complainants.

Dumfries & Galloway Council Officers refuse to reply – what are Elected Members. MSPs and regulators doing about this unacceptable situation?

The following was delivered to Gavin Stevenson Chief Executive Dumfries & Galloway Council & Alexander Haswell Director of Chief Executive Service on 16-April at 10:04 and then copied extensively.  Including to: The Convener, The Leader, other Elected Members, MSPs, former local MPs, other Council Officers, Care Commission Director of Adult Services Regulation, Mental Welfare Commission, Dumfries CAB Chief Executive, UCI, SWIA, The Deputy Chief Constable (DCC), carers and the media, together with a number of relevant attachments, not reproduced here but available on request to DGPPG. 

It is highly critical and explicitly provided for a right of reply, requesting  evidence of why any of the criticism, some personal, should not be placed openly ‘on the record’ in the public interest if no such evidence was provided.  Eleven days later, well outwith the much extended time period for a response and despite repeated reminders pressing for such a reply, nothing has been received.  So it can only be reasonably assumed all the following is agreed by GS and AH as true and fair comment for the open public record.  Being fully documented all comments can be ’stood up’ in any event, whilst all original emails and letters are freely discoverable from the Council under FoI. 

It is also disappointing that no response has been received from senior Elected Members, the Convener & Leader, who appear to be failing in their duty to represent effectively those who elected them and hold Council Officers properly to account for their behaviour and failures of due process.  Action and comments are also awaited from the regulatory bodies and MSPs etc. 

Dear Mr Stevenson.  We are very pleased to hear from several Elected Members that you will shortly be returning to your post after a long absence and send you very best wishes for a full recovery, hoping to see you again soon.  Unfortunately the saga is seemingly never ending, because your senior officers continue to refuse to answer complaints in an honest, open and transparent way.  They either ignore the questions that are raised or redefine any complaint in their terms to suit the negative rejection they intend to give, whatever the truth.  As we told you on 23 Nov last year, your Council complaints system is morally corrupt.  We are sure all recipients are very bored with the saga and too much correspondence but we make no apology for this, especially as you agreed on 23/11/09 that the complaints and matters raised are legitimate and not vexatious.  We are not stopping until this moral corruption is corrected and believe you support us in that, from what you said last year.

We refer to Mr Haswell’s latest reply, on your behalf, of 12 April 2010, copy attached Ref: SS/3-AH/FS/006.  Yet again this reply is wholly unsatisfactory.  Legitimate questions and complaints we raised have not been answered.  Either the Care Commission continues to be misled by your Officers or we and others in the DPCH Improvement Project Groups have been deliberately lied to.  It’s as simple as that, especially when the Council Press statement of 1 April is taken into account.  Our questions about this to the Project Manager on 6 April remain unanswered. 

We wish to stress we are making no complaint whatsoever about the Project Manager, because she is now put in an impossible position by her senior managers.  She has worked tirelessly and honestly, recognising the importance of the DP model of care in all its facets as a very important resource to all in Dumfries & Galloway.  We trust her, but it seems her good works and ours are being subverted.  That project has nothing to do with day to day routine and ongoing maintenance, decoration, replacements and repairs.  Mr Haswell has chosen to ignore the undertakings given to us all over the past many years, but especially the last two by Mr Alexander and Mrs Collington, that these day to day jobs would be done.  That is not good enough or acceptable.  Can we have all the outstanding answers please.

We do not want a repeat of the history we discussed in November.  Mr Haswell has buried complaints, including one that concerned him directly and the formal Council meeting he convened after 5pm in the public bar of a Castle Douglas hotel to discuss the last FDP complaint, which was of course never answered.  He stated in the presence of three very reliable witnesses that if we wanted to complain to the Ombudsman then we could and if the Council “got a slapped wrist then we will simply ignore it”.  Mr Haswell knows all this is documented and on the record, as is his failure to properly action meetings with Council minutes and Mr & Mrs A’s letter of 10 May 2007 (copy attached) which remains unanswered to this day.  In addition to delivery by email, Mrs A has a signed receipt for its hand delivery to Council HQ.  It concerns a complaint about abuse by a carer at DP and interference with Powers of Attorney, another complaint buried by your Officers, particularly Mr Haswell.  History is now repeating with a named and registered Social Worker (note complaint now submitted to SSSC) because no lessons are learned or corrections made by managers.  This latest ‘investigation’ was another bungled whitewash.

Last November you urged us to complain to the Law Society/SLCC, the SPSO and Standards Commission, because your officers were assuring you that all was resolved.  Because of your extended absence we have not been able to discuss this further with you since, but can advise that complaints have been lodged with SLCC & the Chief Investigating Officer and SSSC.  Since this involves a former Dumfries & Galloway solicitor, now understood to be employed by Edinburgh City Council, a courtesy copy of this note confirming this has been sent to that Chief Executive.

Mr Haswell does refer to the Police and the report you said we would receive.  But DCC Graham has already dealt with this timeously, unlike Mr Haswell.  We have already have a detailed reply from the DCC, which is also attached along with our thanks.  As we say your officers could learn a lot from the Police management culture and the way their complaints procedure actually works and is seen to be open, transparent and honest, being managed with integrity.  Please can / will you establish the same culture in the Council, as the Police have achieved this with effective leadership.       

Finally Mr Haswell appeared to bully the FDP volunteer charity with implied threats about “legal advice”.  Bullying is another characteristic we have experienced in the past from Council Officers.  He also talks about the “right of reply”.  So we are giving a right of reply to the criticism we make in this note.  If by close of business on Monday 19 April Mr Haswell can evidence anything in this note that is untrue, then we will happily withdraw and apologise.  If not then it is all on the public record and we will seek the maximum scrutiny of all the multiple Council failures by whatever means.  It seems that adverse publicity is the only way to hold this Council to account, unless Elected Members will actively do so outwith ‘Party’ politics.

We look forward to your reply by or on Monday, otherwise we assume all that we say is accepted as true and for the public record.   Thank you.   AWIA welfare attorney.

Alleged professional misconduct – formal complaints lodged with SLCC / LSS vs Dumfries & Galloway Council’s senior legal officers.

DGPPG is reliably informed that two families have intimated formal and very detailed complaints alleging professional misconduct by two senior Dumfries and Galloway Council legal officers, both qualified solicitors on the Roll, and a former D&G Council Legal Services solicitor who left very early 2009, soon after an internal complaint was made.  It is understood he now works at the City of Edinburgh Council, although his departure was said to be a “happy coincidence”, not a consequence of his alleged actions.  

It is understood these complaints concern an allegedly deliberate and wholly unauthorised publication by email of a highly detailed but closed court record in a civil case, which contained the most sensitive and damaging personal information, some known to be untrue, about vulnerable adults and others, seemingly in a possible attempt to influence the future evidence in chief of cited witnesses in the case and so wrongly influence the judgement.  Also the allegedly deliberate presentation to the court of information allegedly known to be false and misleading and refusing to correct this for several months, when the truth was known and demonstrated. 

It is alleged that Dumfries and Galloway Council Officers have refused to investigate these matters internally, so forcing external complaints to be made.  Because the consequences have been so serious over an extended time period of more than three years, it is understood the families concerned hope the copious documentary evidence is sufficient for the case to be heard in public by the SSDT (Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal), so all can then learn what goes on behind the scenes and may otherwise be covered up and buried.  It is understood that Social Work played a big part in these matters and further complaints will be made to relevant SW regulatory bodies, if possible.  This is because there is no effective and impartial internal D&G Council complaints process. 

It is understood the Social Work Director was directly involved, as well as his staff allegedly responsible for producing false and misleading documents or information for the court and failing to correct this when it was discovered.  It is suggested there may be other important allegations involving failure of data protection, breaches of confidentiality, conflicts of interest and failure of duty of care. 

It is further understood that the D&G Police have carried out a robust complaints investigation some time ago into those aspects of their involvement in this case, to the satisfaction of at least one family.  A comment has apparently been made that if the police can handle complaints in an honest, transparent and fair manner, leading to positive learning outcomes, then why are D&G Council Officers incapable of doing the same? 

It is also alleged that senior Elected Members were approached for help, but were not prepared to do so and have failed in their duty to represent and seek the necessary accountabilty of Officers, which would have helped correct matters much sooner.  It is understood the D&G Council Chief Executive encouraged intimation of these complaints, agreeing they were justified and not vexatious, because he was informed by statutory Officers there were no problems and that all outstanding complaints had been satisfactorily resolved, allegedly not true. 

This situation appears to be yet another consequence of the embedded and apparently deeply flawed management culture of Dumfries & Galloway Council, which has been publicly depicted as ‘morally corrupt’.  This is also apparent when reading many of the other articles and reports posted on this site and has previously been reported in independent and “damning” inspections of Dumfries & Galloway Council by both SWIA & Audit Scotland. 

It was hoped by many that the departure in 2009 of the former Chief Executive Phil Jones and the appointment of Gavin Stevenson, would herald a new era of integrity, honesty and transparency.  So far in this area of Social Work and complaints handling there no evidence that such change is apparent to ordinary citizens, who should be better served by this Council.    

If DGPPG obtains any further information that is relevant, this post will be updated.  There have been no responses to date from either the Council or UCI.