Care Commission – request for action, comments and reply to earlier messages, including 1-April

Email text as submitted to Care Commission Regional Manager Henry Mathias Sun 25 April at 11:14.  This relates to the email to J Alexander sent 25/4 at 01:43.   

Dear Mr Mathias.  Apologies.  You and your Dumfries colleagues should have been on the circulation of this.  Marcia Ramsay (a Care Commission Director) had a cc.  Please can we have a reply to our email to you as listed in the attached, 1/4/10 at 11:32 and your comments on the issues raised in the others.   The misleading press statement and what The Care Commission has been told is now causing great anxiety.  What are these “options” that we all know nothing about.  What management changes are being made at the care home?   Given the problems created by the false report to the police and court we are very concerned about the depute.   That’s why we asked about SSSC registration in a later email. 

There is total silence from the Council, despite chasing at Chief Executive level.  We have been told he was back at work last week, part time at least.  So the main point is that we are in the dark and getting more anxious day by day.  This is exactly like 2006.  There is no doubt that what we have been told and the ‘Care model futures project’ we are involved with, is obviously not what the Care Commission has been told and the public/Elected Members informed of via a press statement about the future of the home and respite care.  This was despite the express agreement there would no such public statements about the future until all was agreed with the families and FDP and no “options” could possibly be agreed before September at the earliest. 

As yet there is still no date for the next and outstanding Steering Group meeting.  The last was on 10 Feb, when all agreed urgent action was required.  No notes have yet been published after that meeting at which UCI, Carolyn Little and Morven Campbell, were present and caused upset.  A family representative had to leave the meeting before the end, because she was so upset at what they were saying.  Others were very concerned, and now there are the latest UCI events.  Adequate ‘consultation’ is not achieved by involving UCI.     

Now we also have the latest dimension of UCI activity and the suggestion in your January Inspection Report they will be involved at the care home and taking over a role adequately served by FDP unpid volunteers for nearly 30 years.  Is this also another “audit”, like CIC in Dumfries?   What qualifications and training do UCI have to carry out such roles given their very poor track record and who regulates what they do?  It seems UCI wish to second guess and take over inspections and “audits” from the Care Commission.  This is also very worrying.   We would welcome your reply and comments on all this and what is happening at the care home, as represented to the Care Commission.   Thank you.   welfare attorneys for a resident and FDP Trustees.

 PS  We will copy the text only of this email, not the attachment, to Marcia Ramsay for her information and did so:

Attention Marcia Ramsay  Director Care Commission.  Dear Ms Ramsay.   For your information & action.  

HM, ER & KF should have been included in the original circulation 25/4 at 01:43.  We are looking for a reply and action from HM / Care Commission re 1/4 and later messages.  The present situation of uncertainty, upset & distress is worse than unsatisfactory and surely the Care Commission cannot allow this to continue?  What are you going to do?  This is the text of a message just sent at 11:14 to HM, ER & KF with a full copy of the email & attachments to J Alexander at 01:43, you had a cc.  The 11:14 message text reads:  (as above). 

We now need meaningful action by the Care Commission and your response to this unacceptable situation, because this uncertainty and upset created by the Council Officers cannot be allowed to continue any longer, it is damaging health.  All of this depressing saga is now fully on the public record.  Thank you.

Moral Corruption? No change since 2005/6. SWIA has made no difference.

DGPPG has received this text of email sent to the SW Director J Alexander 25 April by those with a legal status and proper locus in these matters and with the permission of Mr & Mrs A.  Note that names that could identify vulnerable adults have been changed, e.g., Mr & Mrs A, B etc.  This email had a number of attached files and earlier emails, which it is understood were circulated to the Care Commission, Elected Members and various MSPs etc.  Further details of these and recipients can be supplied on request to DGPPG by email or via the ‘Comments’ link or the ‘Reply’ box below. 

DGPPG also understands all this source material is with the press and media ‘on the record’  in the public interest and may be quoted providing the identity or identification of any vulnerable adults by association remains fully protected.  Given past bullying and threats there are reasonable fears of possible repercussions on those most vulnerable.  However the ongoing saga since 2005/6 of what has been described as “moral corruption” now requires exposure to public scrutiny. When a reply is received we hope more information can be provided. 

There will be other posts re UCI and the complaints against that organisation and possibly its Trustee(s).  Complaints have been lodged with OSCR, the Charity Regulator.  Hopefully the role of the Chief Executive of the CAB in the UCI complaints matter will also be clarified as many cannot believe or understand how the CAB, an organisation where carers have the highest possible regard, could possibly condone or support the UCI actions.  DGPPG also notes that the UCI www site, which was carrying a misleading statement about complaints, was changed after a request on 23 April, but does not now refer to the serious complaints that are now outstanding since 14 April, without the required action.   

Also there is still no reply to the email and questions sent to the Trustees of UCI 21 Dec 09, see the earlier post on this site for details.  The Chair of UCI Trustees has now been asked directly to explain this delay and to answer those questions and for action on the complaint and full recall of the UCI Annual Report 2009 and at least one other document, also with unauthorised photographs, that is an “Audit” by UCI of a CIC facility.  We are enquiring into this and have asked for the views and comments of the Care Commission.  

The text of the email 25 April to John Alexander, with minimal editing, is as follows:

“Thank you for your email sent 22/4 at 19:04 as attached, but strangely to me (B) alone, not Mr & Mrs A?  Please explain why that is?  Because they were also present on Weds, and far more directly affected than me by yet another instance of what can very fairly described be as an unacceptable, inexcusable and unforgivable lack of competence by your officers.  Yet you do not mention them, nor offer any apology for what happened, described as, “yesterday’s unfortunate events”.  Do you agree this appears rather dismissive, as you wrote?

B,   Following yesterday’s unfortunate events, it is important that you and I meet to discuss how we can improve relations between yourself and my officers. Please contact Marion here to arrange a suitable time for us to meet.  Many thanks.  John

Is the understatement and irony accidental?  If instead both you and HC (a senior social worker) had immediately written and meaningfully apologised to us all on Wednesday, then “relations” would automatically improve.  But you and your officers seem unable to recognise mistakes and apologise.  So others can judge whether such criticism is justified, attached is the email sent to you 21/4 at 16:04 after the “unfortunate events”.  It is a serious complaint.  But as is often the case, you have not yet bothered to reply. 

Hopefully HC & JP (Complaints Manager) have reported to you how Mrs A was reduced to tears and Mr A provoked to near breaking point.  All because HC kept maintaining and repeating, over and over again, that she wrote and sent a letter “postponing” the meeting we had turned up for at 09:30 in Mr B M Kearney’s office, Buccleuch Street.  HC said she knew the As had received the letter around lunchtime on Tuesday, because her staff (F) had called to check. 

But when Mr A kept repeating that letter did not say anything about “postponing”, only asked for written confirmation that I may attend, it was perfectly obvious HC did not believe him and though him stupid.  So she kept contradicting Mr A, patronising him and asking him to produce the letter.  But it was at his home.  He said several times asking why did he need it with him, that he wasn’t stupid, that he could read and knew what it said.  It was quite straightforward and he had actioned what the letter requested for the meeting to take place, as Mr Kearney then confirmed, in writing. 

Mr A explained this time after time after time.  He also said, as did I, that a letter from HC & sent by email to Mr Kearney on 19/4 at 16:30 and read out by Mr Kearney from the PC in his office earlier that morning, was NOT the letter the As had received.  Mr & Mrs A, already very upset about the meeting fiasco, were then made even more distressed and frustrated at being disbelieved, the clear implication being they were lying about the letter.  HC kept maintaining that she KNEW what it said, and it said “MEETING POSTPONED”.  When asked to display it on the PC in your office she said she couldn’t and that some files were already deleted.  Finally she went to another office and came back with what she said was a copy and read it out in triumph, emphasising it did say POSTPONED.  She would not accept what Mr & Mrs A kept telling her and JP, namely that the letter they received did not!  

Getting nowhere, but agreeing the meeting would be reconvened on Tuesday 27/4, we left.  But as we did so we fortunately had the good sense to ask JP for a copy of the letter had HC printed.  In Woodbank reception he went and made one and gave it to us.  All recipients can now read that 2pp copy (note it is actually dated 16/4) as a scanned image was sent that afternoon to you, JP, HC et al with the complaint email now also attached (File=URGENT … complaint sent 21/4 at 16:52).  You could and should have then compared it to the letter actually delivered, dated 19/4, also copied with that complaint. 

Isn’t it amazing, not only are they very different letters, but that sent to the As by post mentions nothing about “POSTPONED” at all, just as the As kept saying.  But Officers are always right and know best.  The mistake was HC not reading and checking what we can all now see was mangled, but plausible, ‘cut and paste’ garbage.  A subordinate, F was left to ‘sign pp’ and post.  Presumably HC takes responsibility for this and not F? 

Do you agree that your senior officers should personally check important letters?  Especially when they are leaving it to the very last minute to supposedly cancel an important meeting by post, despite the As having email, and indeed even have a telephone!  Mr Kearney was told the Weds 09:30 meeting was cancelled at 16:30 on Monday, so why weren’t the As told at the same time, by email?  Please explain the deliberate delay by using post such that HC then had to get F to call the As at least twice in the morning of 20/4 to check the letter (that she thought had been sent) had been received, by unreliable post.  If HC had put as much effort into checking the letter content, then “relations” would be much improved.   

As you know, this was an important meeting, first requested by the As last December, but not organised by your officers timeously.  An important meeting about the abuse of the second AWIA attorney powers granted by C to replace the PoAs removed by the deliberate abuse and improper undue influence of the D&G Council carer at a Council run care home in Aug 2006.  The carer actually addressed the envelope because C could not.  But the complaint, like so many was covered up.  These are serious complaints that are still outstanding and never resolved, just like the ‘inappropriate touching’ complaint.  A meeting so important that, as Mrs A said in tears, caused her to have no sleep the night before through worry, because of what your officers and social workers are doing to them and to C. 

For those recipients who may not know the significance of the history, also attached is an email report sent to Mr Leckie at SWIA on 29/8/06 at 00:10, including copy correspondence with the Office of the Public Guardian & MWC about the abuse by a carer at DPCH.  None of these serious complaints were properly investigated, still being outstanding and ‘buried’ by AH.  See letter 10 May 2007 as attached re the D&G Council Complaints Appeal Panel, still unanswered to this day.  All this and much more is now fully ‘on the record’.

Then add into that mix the recent UCI gross breach of privacy by publishing unauthorised and literally ‘defaced’ photographs.  You are also very aware of the additional sensitivity about photographs and why, but you did nothing.  This was also discussed last Weds, because you & JP and other D&G Council Officers, cc the Chief Executive, did not bother to reply or take any action about the complaint the As sent to you and UCI on 15/4.  But after admitting they had no required written permission, UCI ignored that complaint as well and then engaged in word games.  So the culture seems common. 

Please note that Ms IM has a copy of this message in her capacity as Chief Executive of Dumfries CAB, as well as Chair of UCI Trustees, because these are issues that go much wider than UCI and are no doubt relevant to others.  That is certainly what we were told when greatly helped in the past by another CAB, not in Dumfries

We are sure you do not mean to appear dismissive about the upset last Weds, wholly created by your officers, when saying these are just “unfortunate events”,  because to do so would be to fan the flames, not put out the fire.  So please will you now provide a detailed written reply and explanation of those “unfortunate events”, which are subject to formal complaints and hopefully an apology.  Or please at least acknowledge the complaints and get them properly investigated by a really independent person. 

Unfortunately the situation you have created is like, if not worse than, 2006 before the “damning SWIA Report”.  Because D&G Council Officers maintain and buttress a wall of silence, apart from making misleading anonymous press statements like that of 1^st April.  Despite our repeated requests there is still no clarification about the anxiety and upset that has created, nor other outstanding complaints and questions, for examples see April emails as listed below, with no reply or answers to legitimate complaints.  All these emails and their attached files must be available from D&G Council under FoI with names redacted, and the date & times makes an explicit FoI request very easyl: 

22/4 at 08:34 – Confirm & justify or withdraw misleading press statement 1/4 and apologise; chases ‘effective participation’.

20/4 at 09:50 – Care Home management changes.  Imminent identification of “options in a few weeks” as the press statement 1/4 falsely claims.  A public announcement made by the Council in clear breach of an express agreement with the families.   Also chases for action re UCI & the photos.

16/4 at 14:32 – SSSC Registration & Care home depute manager.

16/4 at 10:04 – re Care Commission “weak” & care home complaint by FDP & outstanding complaints to AH & Chief Exec.

15/4 at 16:45 – to Project Manager seeking explanation and clarification of press statement 1/4 and date of next project group meeting, last was 10 Feb.

9/4 at 12:44 – to J Alexander asking why Project Group email was deleted by you without being read?  Requested a reply, none given.

9/4 at 23:57 – to C/I of Police with thanks for the DCC’s comprehensive update letter 6/4 & for his action.

8/4 at 12:27 – formal complaint re press statement 1/4.  Not even acknowledged and “deleted without being read” by you.  

7/4 at 12:25 – Are Senior Managers in Denial?  Asking for a response and action re legitimate complaints.

7/4 at 10:32 – FDP complaint re DPCH response byAH requesting factual corrections for Care Commission.

6/4 at 18:09 – to Project Manager re DP Project Group requesting clarification/correction of misleading press statement 1/4.

1/4 at 11:32 – to Henry Mathias Care Commission “Weak Grading in successive Reports” misleading information from AH.  Request Care Commission comments and action.

We are more than happy to meet with you and others to discuss all this and get answers from you, as this will obviously greatly help to improve relations.  This should also include the actions agreed at the CD meeting on Dec 16^th following which you have broken every undertaking you gave publicly at that meeting, as also recalled by Cllr I Blake and reported the next day by the many carers then present and in the press.  (and on this site).  May we suggest that you reconvene that meeting, as you then promised to do in January, and try again as that will help enormously to improve relations, which we all want to achieve.

To do that is very simple.  Honesty, transparency, timely answers to questions, truthful information and effective participation.  Our request about that dated 5 Nov 2009, after the ARC debacle has just been ignored, despite Gavin Stevenson’s assurances at our meeting 23/11.  This was chased again on 22/4 qv.  Similarly the request to observe, let alone participate, in the Personalisation Board was ignored, yet UCI attend.  See earlier posts on this site. 

You ask about improving relations.  Well it’s pretty obvious from this catalogue of failure what you can do to achieve this, so we look forward to hearing from you some dates when you are available for a meeting to discuss this with all those affected and involved.   No doubt you will be sending a list of dates and times early next week and we look forward to receiving these. Thank you. B”

As soon as any reply is received we will update this post.

Latest desperate requests pleading for a reply from Chief Executive Gavin Stevenson

The public press statement by the Council on 1/4 was in clear breach of the express undertaking that no announcements would be made without full and prior agreement of the families and FDP to avoid upsetting residents and service users with uncertainty.  The Council has unilaterally ignored this, showing they just do not care and say one thing but do another.  It’s just like the ARC closure announcement 20 Oct 2009.  We believe they made the statement, perhaps authorised by Mr Haswell, or Mr Alexander, because they have mislead the Care Commission telling one story to the Regulator (and possibly Elected Members?) and another different story to the families.  This is to cover up the failure to carry out basic decorating, repairs and ongoing day to day maintenance.  This included putting residents at risk of harm, the Care Commission’s words in June 2009.  Who did authorise and make the press statement?  Will they tell us?

This is the email sent Friday 23/4 at 13:26:

Dear Mr Stevenson.  PLEASE can we have the requested clarification of the Press Statement made 1^st April by an anonymous “Council Spokesperson”.  Why is there absolute silence and refusal to respond in any way by you and your senior officers to our repeated requests for clarification?  The question is very simple. 

The uncertainty you (D&G Council) have created is causing great distress and increasing anxiety as time passes.  It appears there is a serious implied threat to the future of DPCH, which could include possible closure like 2006, because of these undisclosed and secret “options” that the Council has announced but everyone refuses to either deny or confirm or explain.   Do they exist and if so what are they?  

If they do not exist then please stop causing much distress and anxiety and clearly say so, apologising for this misleading press announcement.  This behaviour is exactly what D&G Council Officers did in 2006.   

We last wrote to you and your officers about this yesterday morning 22/4 at 08:34 (and many times before that during April).  In view of the importance and significance we expected a reply by now, since this concerns vulnerable people’s home and essential respite services.  The ARC closures were sprung on us last October announced on the BBC Radio News, is this another example?   

Why will you and your officers, like Mr Alexander & Ms Collington, not tell us what is going on?  Our question is very simple.  We have asked repeatedly during April, but get silence and no response.  Why are they doing this?  

We look forward to your urgent reply today, this afternoon, before there is another weekend of uncertainty.   Thank you.   AWIA welfare attorneys for a DPCH resident and FDP Trustees.

This followed up the message sent 22/04 at 08:34 as follows:

Dear Mr Stevenson.   On 1^st April an anonymous “Council Spokesperson” made what we say is a false and misleading press statement.  See attached and other correspondence.  This stated that by now, “in a few weeks” Council “options” would be identified.  We say that was deliberately misleading to justify the false justification for failures “during successive years” given to the Care Commission. 

Please will you personally confirm as Chief Executive on behalf of the Council whether this press statement is, or is not, correct and truthful?    If not please can we have a public retraction and apology for the upset and distress needlessly created, together with a proper reply to the complaints and the necessary works put in hand immediately.

It you say it is true, then please disclose in detail what these DPCH “options” are, who has agreed them and when?  Also explain why they and the press statement were announced without any necessary consultation and impact assessment on those directly affected?

Do these options relate to the imminent departure of the Manager, which is now widely rumoured.  Yet again we have no official information, despite this being explicitly requested.   Is this departure linked to all the very serious outstanding complaints against him and the depute, or another “happy coincidence” like KG, the council solicitor who also left soon after serious complaints, now referred in detail to the SLCC and LSS with others, as you know?    

Please would you also note that we do not accept the outcomes or manner in which Mr Haswell has handled and simply dismissed justified complaints.  Particularly given his documented track record in this area.   

Finally please will you ensure your senior managers now provide answers to all outstanding questions, including a response about “Effective participation” email 5/11/09 as attached.  We discussed this on 23/11 when you assured me this would be implemented early this year.  But nothing has changed and there is no reply to that long outstanding email request whilst many other public undertakings by Mr J Alexander have been broken, destroying trust in what he says.  In many ways the situation has deteriorated and is even worse than in 2006. 

We look forward to your urgent reply, ‘on the record’.   Thank you.   AWIA welfare attorney for a DPCH resident and FDP Trustee.

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.

UCI Complaint – recall action being chased more than a week later. Moral corruption?

PERSONAL Attention Irene Mungall  Chair UCI and FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

Dear Ms Mungall.  It is now over a week since we complained to you, and you still have not had the elementary good manners to let us know if you have recalled all your Annual Reports with the unauthorised photographs of our vulnerable adult relative on the front page.  Also the Reports you gave out to C.I.C clients and others, which also have more photographs in.  We know you have not  stopped giving out your report as I  came to your office yesterday and was given 2 Annual Reports with my relative’s face blacked out with Felt Tip pen, what an insult to our relative.  UCI has admitted the photographs are not authorised, that you have no permission, but still you refuse to recall these documents, which you are legally obliged to do.

We were told by Mr Judex Paul yesterday that you MUST destroy all these Reports and keep the evidence for us to see. We require a reply to this Email by tomorrow (Friday) to let us know what you have or have not done.  We are not waiting 14 Days for this to be done, because you have already caused great distress not only to us but also to our relative, a vulnerable adult. 

If the staff responsible had any integrity, honour and decency at all, then they would consider their position.   By these actions and their defiance they are surely unfit to discharge the objectives UCI set out to OSCR and in your literature and www site.  This site is presently misleading as you have had these complaints for a week.  So your www “statement” is a lie.  UCI is not a credible ‘charity’.

Named AWIA Welfare and Financial Attorneys for the vulnerable adult concerned.  Please copy any reply by email   in addition to any hard copy sent by post.

These are UCI statements, when will UCI live up to them?

Our mission:

To ensure that people who have mental illness, dementia or learning disabilities, and their carers have a representative voice and, as a result, see positive changes in their service provision.

Our values underpin all of the above;

• The right to be treated fairly and with dignity

Objects as cited on OSCR www site:  To relieve the needs of carers and users of care services in Dumfries and Galloway.

UCI complaints also submitted to OSCR and misleading www site statement

This email was sent 22 April at 09:45.  The UCI was changed on 23/4 but no longer refers to complaints at all, having previously and wrongly stated there were no complaints.

PERSONAL Attention Irene Mungall  Chair UCI and FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

Your public and current UCI www site home page statement is misleading and untrue.  UCI received complaints last week.  In view of this statement, please will you ensure the UCI site immediately records and reports these complaints truthfully and also refers to the unanswered questions of 21 Dec 2009, which were implicit complaints.  

To avoid doubt we have complained and are complaining about the UCI Trustees failure to reply in any way to that detailed email, even if only an email reply to DGPPG asking for a name and postal address, if that is what you required.  To suggest UCI Charity Trustees can simply ignore correspondence like this, because it is from a group of carers many of whom are known personally to Morven Campbell from various meetings, is disingenuous and dissembling.  

If UCI has any doubt about the email 21/12/09 you can refer to the further copy sent yesterday or click on: http://www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk/activity-resource-centres-arcs-2009/dumfries-and-galloway-news/another-option-for-a-budget-cut-cease-public-funding-of-uci-as-it-is-suggested-no-value-is-being-obtained-by-the-learning-disabled/

Named Welfare Attorneys for a resident and ARC service user with full address supplied.

UCI. Complaint restated after ‘word games’ trying to pretend the message 15/4 was not actually a “complaint”.

An email sent to UCI on 21/4 at 21:08 with an earlier reply from UCI.

PERSONAL Attention Irene Mungall  Chair UCI and FAO OSCR Investigation Officers re SC 031853

To avoid any doubt re the UCI www site home page statement dated 2 March 2010:  THIS email and all earlier emails, especially that dated 15 April as attached, ARE COMPLAINTS.

1. OSCR are also asked to investigate along with the UCI funders Dumfries & Galloway Council & NHS D&G and the R S Macdonald Charitable Trust – Mr R K Austin WS Trust Secretary.
2. CIC are requested to note the matter of the 3 photos in the UCI “****** Audit Oct/Nov 09”, which we require recalled and destroyed – attn Brian Murphy Asst Dir Scotland.
3. Henry Mathias Care Commission and SWIA are asked why an unregulated ‘pseudo charity’ like UCI is carrying out non independent ‘Audits’?  Is this not the role of the Care Commission? 

From:  Mr & Mrs A     Full name & address supplied.  Please ensure that IN ADDITION to any correspondence sent by post you also send a copy by email as an attached file to us at: email address supplied

 We refer to our complaints made last week in various tel calls and by email, particularly Thursday 15/4.   To avoid any doubt a further copy is attached.  We noted that UCI arrogantly refused to treat this email as a “complaint”, refer to the UCI reply below. 

However, Mr Judex Paul, a D&G Council Complaints Officer, today stated this was “obviously a complaint”.  Yet on behalf of UCI, Project Coordinator Ms ****  seemed to want to play word games and failed to take action.   This is a further complaint about Ms ***** failure to so act and her unsatisfactory reply.

UCI has failed to recall all copies of the Annual Report 2009 and evidence to us that this has been done and that all copies are destroyed.  Judex Paul stated today UCI should do this immediately as a minimum action.  As at 12:05 today UCI is still freely distributing the “Annual Report 2009” at 81-85 Irish Street Dumfries  DG1 2PQ with a face ‘blacked out’ in scribbled felt tip.  We asked for and were freely given 2 copies.  UCI is still distributing this Report, with a literally ‘defaced’ photograph, despite the explicit request last week.

UCI has failed to recall all copies of the “Report of Community Integrated Care ****** Audit” and evidence that all unauthorised photographs taken and published with permission have been destroyed.  There are at least three such photographs in this ‘Audit’.  We ask again if written and informed permission and consent was obtained from all others pictured in this document before photos were taken and published.  If so can this be produced to an appropriate regulatory body with evidence of the actual dates. 

Exactly who or what official body ‘regulates’ the activities of UCI, where we now note *****  and ****** are self styled ‘auditors’?  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Please will UCI, as an ‘auditor’ of others, note that your Scottish Charity No. is 6 digits long – 031853.  It is not SCO and five digits per your Annual Report.  Surely, those who self style and purport to ‘Audit’, whilst claiming to be experts in ‘communication’, should themselves be capable of getting the basics correct?  This is in addition to understanding basic human rights of privacy, by not breaching the elementary fundamentals.

We cannot find your published complaints procedure.  It does not appear to be on the UCI www site nor is there a named officer or Trustee to complain to.  If it is we apologise and please direct us to it by return, with the site unchanged, as we have taken a ‘snapshot’.  We assume there is written policy.  Please will you email a file copy by return stating when the procedure was written, by whom and the date first published.  This complaint is therefore addressed to the Chair Irene Mungall.

We note below that Ms **** for UCI now writes today, at least 4-5 days after we first complained, that: “The next stage of the procedure is for myself to undertake an investigation into your complaint and a detailed response will be sent to you within 14 working days as per UCI procedures.” 

But Ms ****  is one of those directly complained of, as responsible for these breaches.  Ms **** is not therefore ‘independent, just as UCI itself is not ‘independent’, in the true meaning of that word.  UCI is clearly trying to ‘drum up business’ and justify income from it’s sponsors, which inevitably invokes the thought of ‘pipers and tunes’.  UCI is not a real volunteer independent charity.  In reality it is acting as a ‘pseudo charity’ being a de facto extension of D&G Council & NHS D&G, but accountable to no one.    

To avoid any doubt please note that we are instructing UCI under no circumstances to approach or discuss any matters with our relative.  We request that both UCI and D&G Council note this and confirm this instruction is understood.  UCI has already caused him (and us) enough distress and upset. 

The UCI www site carries the following on the ‘Home’ page:  http://www.userandcarer.co.uk/home.html  

Statement from UCI dated 2 March 2010 published on the UCI www site home page

We understand that emails are circulating containing mis-information regarding UCI activities.  We can confirm that UCI has a comments and complaints procedure, the purpose of which is to address any concerns people may have.  We can also confirm that to date, UCI has received no notification of any complaint.  As a result we are not in a position to respond to the views and perspectives that have been sent anonymously to others. We have nothing to add to this statement at the current time.   2^nd March 2010

A group of concerned carers did write to UCI by email on 21 Dec 2009 with a number of questions clearly addressed: “Attn Trustees & Management Committee UCI.   81-85 Irish Street Dumfries DG1 2PQ  OSCR: SC031835”.  A copy of this email is attached and can be read with other comments at the following link:    http://www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk/activity-resource-centres-arcs-2009/dumfries-and-galloway-news/another-option-for-a-budget-cut-cease-public-funding-of-uci-as-it-is-suggested-no-value-is-being-obtained-by-the-learning-disabled/

 All recipients should note that UCI did not reply in any way to these reasonable questions, bearing in mind UCI purports to represent learning disabled users and carers, precisely the group asking the questions.  It is also seeking more funding, but therein lies the basic problem. 

Perhaps UCI Trustees will now reply and explicitly confirm their involvement and position re ‘Personalisation’ and the closure of ARCs, which UCI as part of the ‘Personalisation Board’ was clearly involved with last October.

UCI Trustees and sponsors should also note there are many in the learning disabled community, real carers, who are highly critical of both the competence and value of any UCI activity.  Some of those comments are on the DGPPG www site.  We appreciate this may not apply to other UCI activities, but this complaint evidences great incompetence and a lack of basic integrity in dealing with learning disabled vulnerable adults.  We do not consider UCI a worthy or worthwhile recipient of public funds for learning disability.  If not competent in that area what about elsewhere.  Who is auditing the day to day activity and value for money of UCI generally, or is it convenient to have an uncritical and biddable ‘consultation’ partner who is dependant, rather than independent?   

Mr & Mrs A and as Welfare Attorneys for a vulnerable learning disabled adult properly appointed under the AWIA with PoA registered at the Office of the Public Guardian.        

Please copy any reply to:  email address supplied  in addition to any hard copy.   Note following emails:  

-Original Message—-

From: userandcarer1@aol.com

Date: 21/04/2010 8:29

To:  Mr & Mrs A

Subj: Re: Unauthorised photographs of vulnerable adult

 Dear Mrs A,

We now take your email (below) as part of our complaints procedure. 

However to ensure that we adhere to our procedure please supply me with your home address, in order that further correspondence can be sent to you.  The next stage of the procedure is for myself to undertake an investigation into your complaint and a detailed response will be sent to you within 14 working days as per UCI procedures.  Yours sincerely,  Carolyn Little  Project Coordinator  User and Carer Involvement, 885 Irish Street, Dumfries.  DG1 2PQ   

—–Original Message—–

From: Mr & Mrs A

To: userandcarer1@aol.com

Sent: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:40

Subject: Unauthorised photographs of vulnerable adult

Dear Carolyn Little,

                                 It was clearly a complaint and we expect UCI to deal with it as such.  We are not interested in clever word games from supposed ‘charity’.  Have you withdrawn and destroyed all publications?

Having published unauthorised photographs, to save money by ‘blacking out’ the face of a vulnerable adult with scribbled felt tip is not acceptable.  It is adding insult to injury and has already caused much distress. How can you possibly claim to be ‘communication’ experts?     

Mr. and Mrs A

DGPPG Note:  no copy of the UCI complaints procedure and policy was emailed to Mr & Mrs A as requested last week.  Nothing has been received to date.  Some speculate that perhaps it was not actually then in existence, as otherwise any credible and professional organisation, especially a ‘charity’ operting in such a sensitive area, would have sent an attached file copy by return.  But UCI did not, or perhaps could not do so.  Just like the www site statement was misleading and the failure to reply to an important email and questions for more than 4 months.  DGPPG looks forward to the Chair’s explanation for all this, bearing in mind the very professional CAB association and sponsorship.  Is there any possible conflict of interest in this set up, given that as ordinay citizens being badly done to by a quasi official body, Mr & Mrs A could well have approached the CAB for help?

UCI Written complaint confirming earlier tel calls.

This written complaint confirmation was sent 15/4 at 18:25

Attention UCI Trustees; The Managing Director of CIC; The Director of Social Work, NHS D&G Chief Executive and OSCR.

Unauthorised photography of a vulnerable learning disabled adult in Council / CIC care.  Formal complaint.

As you know from our very recent telephone calls it has come to our attention that UCI has taken and published in at least two promotional ‘newsletters’ several unauthorised photographs of Mr A.  We understand these photographs were taken at a care home, address detailed and possibly elsewhere by Morvan Cambell of UCI.  We understand that one image is for a newsletter to promote Personalisation on behalf of D&G Council and NHS Dumfries & Galloway.

We further understand, as published on www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk that UCI is not an independent charity in the normal sense of that word, but substantially funded by taxpayers cash via the Council and NHS.  Please will the UCI Chair of Trustees advise its formal complaints procedure and to what authority it is answerable in regulatory terms, that is in addition to OSCR.  Ditto CIC.

Since D&G Council & NHS Dumfries & Galloway fund Mr A’s care package the NHS Chief Executive and Director of Social Work should take note of this abuse of Mr A’s rights to privacy and tell us what they individually are going to do about it.

UCI is significantly funded by the Council & NHS and appears to be working to a Council / NHS brief to promote Personalisation.  Does this influence UCI actions and cause them to believe they can operate in this cavalier and unacceptable fashion, because they are under Council / NHS patronage?

As you know Mr A has appointed us, his parents, as his Welfare Attorneys under the Adults with Incapacity Act.

As supposed experts in ‘User and Carer Involvement’ and with CIC suppliers of care, all of you are or should be aware that you require written permission before taking photographs of vulnerable adults, let alone then publishing them in the way you have done.

You have no written permission and did not seek any.  That is simply inexcusable, given all the circumstances.

Therefore we insist that you immediately destroy all copies of any publication that contains any image of Mr A, which was taken without any permission and is being used without written permission from us.

When challenged in recent telephone calls, Morven Campbell claimed she had permission from the CIC Care Manager at ****** to take these photos.  That Manager then claimed that Mr A had given UCI permission.  This is contradictory and someone or both is/are not telling the truth and trying to cover up the facts.  But whoever is now claiming what, it has been admitted and established that neither organisation or person has obtained any required written permission whatsoever to take and use photographs of Mr A for this purpose.  Did you have such permission in advance from all the other vulnerable adults in the images you are using.  Or will you now try and create such permission after the event?

Ms Campbell has said that she cannot scrap the leaflet, because too many have been printed and it would cost too much.  In another case she says the leaflet and picture is only an internal image for a CIC / UCI document, so that’s OK.  For the other she has said she will go through each one and ‘black out’ Mr A.

Take note that we are now stating that is not acceptable.  A ‘blacked out’ image raises more questions and is not a solution.

You do not have permission and none is being granted.  We demand that you immediately destroy all leaflets and images of Mr A.  If you have published any then we demand on his behalf that these are recalled and destroyed.  Further that you all confirm to us in writing no later than 5pm Friday April 16^th this what you have done.  We also demand for Mr A an unreserved written apology for this abuse of his rights to privacy and an undertaking from the most senior person(s) in your organisations that such acts will never occur again and that you have taken necessary steps to ensure this.  UCI is clearly unfit as a charity to carry out this sort of role, which should be truly independent and run by properly trained and competent persons.

It seems that lip service is paid towards vulnerable adults, with a great rhetoric of protection.  This is it seems however until bodies like the Council, NHS, UCI and CIC want to do something for their own benefit and purposes, like promoting personalisation.  This is not good enough or acceptable.

We look forward to hearing from you all on Friday 16^th in writing to our email address: as supplied.  Thank you.  Mr & Mrs A

DGPPG Note: There was no action by Friday 16/4 as requested and no reply.  It was later discovered that it was not a “leaflet” but the UCI Annual Report 2009, which makes matters even worse.  UCI has admitted the photos were taken without proper written permission and Ms Campbell’s solution to “save money” was to use felt tip and scribble out the face.  Later Mr A received one of these Reports by post and was very upset saying, “Why is my face scribbled over?”.  Also Mr A is not a “Member” of UCI as the Report’s caption falsely claims.   As of Weds 21/4 the ‘blacked out and defaced’ reports were still being handed out by UCI.

Questions to Alex Haswell about his biased, unsatisfactory, inaccurate and dismissive reply to the FDP complaint 22 Feb 2010. Nothing changes.

The following is an email sent 7/4 at 10:32 to Alex Haswell in response to his dismissive reply to the FDP complaint of 22 Feb 2010 as posted on this site.  Mr Haswell, standing in for the Chief Executive, redefined the complaint in his words, without agreeing this with the FDP, then ‘answered’ his words, finding no grounds.  This is a well worn technique.  He was challenged on 7/4 on just a few points of detail, but has not yet replied.  Attached to this message 7/4 was an email dated 15 Oct 2009 from B Needham the Manager DPCH saying “Hi.  It has been reported today”.  It being the loose and dangerous glass in the back door that in June 2009 the Care Commission reported and told the Manager was a safety risk of harm to the vulnerable residents and staff & visitors.  But the Manager omly reported it 15/10/09 after receiving the following email, which was also sent openly to media in frustration that for nearly 4 months he did nothing!   John Alexander and other more senior  knew of this dangerous fault (and the dilapidated furniture) but also did nothing about it.  JA had a copy of the following on 14 Oct 2009 at 16:24: 

“Barry.  Given what Elizabeth (Care Com) said to us all in June about the foreseeable risk of harm from the loose glass, has a local glazier finally been instructed to sort this out as a matter of urgency?  Particularly since it is also in her report and you had an advance draft copy before our Aug wkg grp mtg.  Why has such a simple local matter not been resolved long ago from the established budget before someone is injured?  As you know Jean (Sec FDP) raised matters of neglected maintenance like this with JA at the very first ‘DP meeting’ in early 2008 and he then promised action 18 mths ago.” 

Email text 7/4:  Attn:  Mr Haswell.  

The attached is just one example, but also a matter of safety, of what your highly selective and redefined ‘complaint investigation’ has conveniently obfuscated.  With a changed description it was not very obvious in your 22/3/10 ‘Appendix’ list; presumably because it does not fit the spin, just like the furniture?  Please can you explain and justify this, because it is clearly material?   

Perhaps you would also now detail when furniture was ‘reported’ (certainly in June 2009 by the Care Commission) and when actually delivered to DP?  We know it was after the FDP complaint both at our Feb meeting that night to the staff and then in writing 22 Feb.  This is missing entirely from your list.  Why?   

Why is it not possible for complaints to be investigated and reported transparently and honestly with all the facts, warts and all, not with selectivity to fit the inevitable denial?   

Also and amazingly you ignore all the evidence of the repeated requests for basic work like decorating, both external to protect the fabric/woodwork, and internal to be done.  Hence “shabby”.  The complaint was that in many responses over “successive years” since before 2006 we were told that, ‘yes, of course it will be done’.  Those were the ‘undertakings’.  You redefine our complaint in your words and then ignore this, no doubt because the complaint is justified.   

If your ‘investigation’ is correct as you say, then we should have been told: “we are not doing it because of the ‘independent review’ or the development project”.  That is at the heart of our complaint, but you conveniently ignore it.  Your response is therefore logically inconsistent and confirms that senior managers did deliberately mislead us, because that is not what they said. 

Also please reflect how amazing it is that in your Appendix list of 24 items over 2 years from 1 Feb 2008 to 1 Feb 2010, one item being, “Request to change time clock”, this and 18 other items were both reported and fixed the same day.  It is truly and really encouraging to see that there is such an immediate rapid response facility within an hour or two the same day, including a repair to a leaking flat roof.  Is it possible that this list and such times really are too good to be true in all instances?   

Of the remaining 5 items, fixing a faulty washing machine took 1 day, but fixing a “Faulty and loose front plate to double socket” took 4 days.  If anything should have been done within the day with priority then surely a death from electrocution risk for learning disabled adults should be the highest?  This took 4 days, not within the day as is clearly routinely achievable?   Faulty security lights in 4 days and a replacement tumble drier in 7 days do look realistic.  

However it is the “Cracked Glass in back door –  reported 15/10/09”, which was “repaired/replaced 19/10/09” in 4 days that is of particular interest.  See the attached email and tell us if you notice anything, like the date?  This item evidences a lie.  This was ‘reported’ in June.  It is the matter the Care Commission specifically reported in June when the inspector saw Mr Needham.  It is really ‘loose glass’, why the change in description?  

Yet Mr Needham only reported it, as your ‘investigation’ evidences, on 15 Oct 09.  That is precisely what we reported and are complaining about.  But you loftily dismiss the complaint saying all is wonderful and there is no substance, then adding implicit bullying threats to a volunteer charity.  Perhaps your ‘investigation’ is either not very thorough, as it should be, or it is as we have said another example of dissembling denial.  Perhaps you would tell us all which it is or give some other explanation.  Either way this is a complaint about your partiality and failure to investigate and report in a competent, fair and balanced manner, which is an essential requirement of your job.   

Until we can have legitimate complaints properly, fairly, independently, transparently and honestly investigated no lessons will ever be learned.  There is zero accountability.    

We look forward to your ‘on the record’ corrections on this and the earlier queries raised to Mr Mathias on 1/4 and the Project Manager yesterday 6/4.  This will help inform FDP at its next meeting 29/4.  We have already asked what has happened to the Council appeal procedure, which you failed to mention, or is FDP to go directly to the SPSO?   

Thank you.  Named Welfare Attorneys for a DP resident and individual FDP Trustees.

There has been no reply from Mr Haswell or the Chief Executive. 

Care Commission – Trustees reject A Haswell bullying response to FDP complaint as “cleverly worded legalistic spin, presumably intended to obfuscate the real facts?”

Email reply to Care Commission 1/4/10 at 11:32.  This was copied to: Mr Haswell, the Chief Executive, Convener Gilroy, Leader Hyslop, other Elected Members, John Alexander, the Project Manager and openly to the local media.  There has been no response or request for any correction from the Officers or Members.  Hence it can only be assumed that they all agree what was written is true and fair comment.  The Care Commission has also failed to respond.  As soon there is a response and the DGPPG is notified, that will be posted on this site. 

Dear Mr Mathias.  Many thanks for your reply this morning.  We note what you say and shall be writing more, hopefully today, with a cc to you and on the public record as is this, about the Council reply to the FDP complaint, dated 22 Mach 2010 Ref: SS/1-AH/FS/004, which the Council has copied to you.  This has now been discussed with the Chair and some others ahead of the next Trustees’ meeting, scheduled for April 29^th.  One major issue, amongst others, is this continued use of the term “independent review” in the reply from A Haswell, who is standing in for the Chief Executive.  

To those with all the facts, that letter is reasonably interpreted as cleverly worded legalistic spin, presumably intended to obfuscate the real facts?  From our perspective it appears to be highly misleading at best.  We will circulate questions about this over next few days when written.  All will all be on record since clearly that is the only way to get action, like the furniture complained of last June, including by the Care Commission, suddenly delivered after adverse publicity!

All concerned have been advised that Mr Haswell, for D&G Council on behalf of the Chief Executive, is trying to bully FDP into issuing a written public apology.  The Council implies legal issues & defamation in this response to the FDP, an active volunteer charity for 30 years, for their temerity and daring in making a legitimate complaint about Council failures over “successive years”, your words.  This includes breaking undertaking after undertaking to both residents and the FDP to carry out basic decoration and maintenance, conveniently not addressed by AH. 

Take note that the Council, through Mr Haswell who has outstanding complaints against himself personally for failing to conduct proper and due process including an earlier FDP complaint which was ‘buried’, will be requested to stand up this claim of defamation and implicit legal threats publicly, or withdraw them.  Because FDP is simply telling the truth and exposing Council failures.  No doubt after their next meeting FDP will make this explicit formally. 

The Council letter to FDP (cc Care Commission) is also either duplicitous about the “independent review” or Council managers at the most senior level are still trying to mislead the Care Commission and possibly Elected Members by saying one thing to them and another to us.  We repeat there is no “independent review” and that Mr Alec Davidson is not leading such a review.  He was brought in, with our agreement at John Alexander’s suggestion, explicitly and only to offer advice from his experience, which the working and steering groups can either accept or reject. 

Perhaps Mr Davidson will now confirm on the record and inform Mr Haswell that this is the case and that he is not leading an independent review, but offering help and advice to the project groups, that is not binding in any way, and which we have welcomed.  Mr Haswell may then wish to correct his letter in that and other detail, as well as answering questions yet to be put to him based on his letter, before the next FDP meeting. 

Take note that if that is not the case then we have all been deliberately lied to and will take appropriate action after further discussion.  After agreements collectively reached in early 2008 with Mr J Alexander as SW Director there is NO “INDEPENDENT REVIEW”!

Out of courtesy we are copying this email to A Haswell, Alec Davidson and to the Project Manager, who is leading the DPCH “improvement project”, which is most certainly not an “independent review”.  This Council reply from Mr Haswell now puts in jeopardy any trust we have in the integrity of the Council and Social Work Director Alexander in setting up this project with us.  We are all working together to achieve the best outcome for all present and future learning disabled vulnerable adult service users who have and will continue in future to benefit hugely (as more than 150 have over ~30 yrs) from the complete model of care at DP.  The project groups will seek out to be informed and assisted by relevant experience from any source, like Mr Davidson.  His very helpful advice has been noted and we will seek similar input from others. 

You will note from our response, as two individual FDP trustees and welfare attorneys, that in addition to asking more questions to assist us all when FDP next meets, we meanwhile reject the Council letter as dissembling and partial.  The Appendix list is selective and omits the furniture and the loose glass reported in June 2009 by your Inspector, but ignored by the manager and only fixed in October after we were forced to complain to the media.   

Please also note furniture miraculously arrived shortly after the recent press report of the FDP complaint headlined, “uncaring & untrustworthy”.  Interestingly, Mr Haswell does not include reference to either in his reply, yet they were explicit items in the FDP February complaint.  We also question why Mr Haswell does not refer to the Council complaint appeal procedure, but instead refers us directly to the SPSO.  We shall propose at the next FDP meeting that action be taken, but why is the Council appeal procedure ignored as the next step, or does such an appeal no longer exist?  Perhaps the Council and Elected Members will answer this point? 

Who is the Officer responsible for complaints under the new fully independent procedure Mr Stevenson assured us was being operated from Jan 2010, in the light of past failures?   

We understand there is a further short report in the Galloway News today.  I certainly authorised the attached comment by name from me to the reporter concerned, who contacted me on Monday.  They may have edited this. I do not know being away helping our daughter.

Please also note that we query two items in the January Inspection report.  The manager has not raised with FDP the matter of meeting with residents, indeed the manager has not attended many recent FDP meetings at DP, as used to be the practice.  The FDP would be delighted to meet with residents at any time as a truly independent body, unlike UCI.  Indeed we have explicitly instructed that no representative from UCI shall meet with our relative to “communicate” given their hidden role in the Personalisation Board and the intended closure of the ARCs.  We note that Mr Davidson also sits on that board, to which we are denied representation.  We do not trust UCI to be independent being so heavily dependant, we believe, on Council / NHS public funding and their failure to reply to our correspondence in December 2009 concerning this and their role in the ARC closure plans.

Since the DP manager has failed to discuss this representation issue with FDP, but is suggesting to your inspector that we are no longer doing this, we sense more manipulation behind the scenes to subvert the 30 yr established role of FDP, because that charity really is independent and motivated, as unpaid volunteers, solely by the best interests of service users.  You may know that the FDP Treasurer was appointed by a resident as Welfare Attorney under the AWIA,. 

Secondly we dispute the claim by the manager that all requests for maintenance and repairs are promptly attended to.  As a matter of record this is not correct and he has personally failed to ensure that safety issues, like the loose glass and dilapidated furniture, were promptly attended to when pointed out to him by your inspector last June! 

We request that the January report is corrected and qualified in those sections, given that it is on the public record and mentions FDP and issues that are incorrect as a matter of record and fact.

We look forward to hearing further in due course and as expressed to the media reasonably expect that the Care Commission uses its teeth to correct matters, now it is demonstrated that the Council has mislead you.

Thank you.  Named Welfare Attorneys for a DP resident and individual volunteer FDP Trustees.