Blog

Refusal to Register Formal Complaint Worcestershire CC

Below is a redacted copy of a letter I received from Worcestershire County Council in response to my letter requesting to register a formal complaint about the deficient safeguarding provided to my vulnerable brother, answers to questions, and an apology.

Where do you go when formal complaints against staff or deficient service provided to vulnerable relatives by a local authority are refused to be recorded, and how often has this happened, and will happen to others?

Worcestershire CC refusal to register formal complaint

JAldred Worcestershire CC Refusal Letter 17-04-2019_Redacted

 

Unreasonable Behaviour Policy Review 2019

This post may become longer than I anticipated as I am slowly going through collected data for a period of over six years.

On 15th June 2019, I received the below letter from SV (Director of Adults and Wellbeing at Herefordshire Council) informing me of a review of the punitive restrictions that were initially imposed on 13th November 2017 by MS, the former director of Adults and Wellbeing at Herefordshire Council.
The oppressive restrictions were initially imposed as a result of showing several pieces of evidence of recurring neglect and institutional abuse of my vulnerable brother at a meeting on 14th September 2016, and after I raised concern about the competence and negligence of Priory Group employees and other ‘professionals’ involved.
I had first become concerned for my brother at his current placement and raised matters back in March 2015, after the staff of the ‘care’ home failed to monitor a fluid restriction and later let two days pass after my brother suffered a fall, before staff made any attempt to seek medical attention; which resulted in an overnight stay in hospital and suspected fractured ankle which fortunately was only badly bruised.

As a side note, SV removed my unpaid care breaks without notice in March 2018, ignored the refusal of carer support for my elderly mother while I attended hospital for skin cancer surgery on two occasions, having to take her with me into the operating area, and later denied help while I had pneumonia; 14 months on chest pain is only just starting to ease.

You will note, in the letter, SV says ‘Having completed this review, I am satisfied that the above arrangements can successfully operate outside of the unreasonable behaviour policy. As such, I can confirm that the policy no longer applies.’

UBP 13-06-2019_Redacted_opt

 

When the letters of 13th June 2019 and 13th November 2017 (below) are compared, you will note the only significant change is to the named contacts.
Further item 1 of the letter on 13th June 2019 proposes I am not to contact my brother’s social care team regarding his care, support or concerns, regardless and irrespective of me being an interested party in the health and welfare of my vulnerable brother.

UBP 13-11-17_Redacted

 

You will not the last paragraph of the letter states ‘Once again I ask you to please note that my offer to meet with you personally in the hope that matters can continue to move forward positively remain’.
In fact, it was I who invited SV, via a solicitor, to meet with my solicitor and me to address long-running concerns and incidents.

And while SV claims, in a separate letter to have offered three dates to meet, via colleagues, this can be evidenced as untrue.
Additionally, by the time I received his letter, the CoP had taken control. I believe the letters were a delaying tactic, and there was no intention to address the neglect and abuse of my brother.

The enthusiasm in attempting to alienate me from my brother, and attempts to remain wilfully ignorant continues, and I believe it is an excellent example of how some family members and unpaid carers involved with Herefordshire Council’s current adult social care personnel are regarded and treated by social care staff from top-level down.
In my opinion, any director who shies away from challenges, makes themselves wilfully ignorant or makes attempts to avoids accountability in the role they are employed is unprofessional and displays a clear weakness of skills. To date, I have received no requested evidence that I have been verbally or physically threatening or intimidating, nor a formal written apology.

In the interest of transparency below are the messages I sent in 2017 to the negligent social worker EG, who had left Herefordshire Council some month prior, and their colleague SC, one colleague who assisted EG in creating erroneous records and failed to report recurring incidents of neglect, distressingly leaving my brother five stones overweight, wearing torn clothing, glassess so dirty they were like frosted windows and with continuing inadequate care and support.

FBmsngr2017

 

Four months after my FB message to the negligent social worker, EG, I received the below threatening letter from DP (Head of Services for Integrated Adult Social Care at Gloucestershire County Council).

Letter from DP GlosCC-24-10-2017_Redacted

 

But the Threats, accusations and defamation do not stop here.

After I contacted Gloucestershire police to ask for a case number and inform them of what happened regarding the negligent social worker EG from my side of events, an understanding officer looked at my concerns and frustrations holistically and provided some useful advice.

I then looked further back, into collected data, to when I had a meeting in 2016 with EG, SS (a regional Manager for The Priory Group who as of writing this is employed by Aspirations), PG (one of the managers at the ‘care’ home) and BS (an advocate provided by onside advocacy to address the incidents of neglect and institutional abuse I had reported since March 2015.
After obtaining communications, I discovered, not only had SS and others lied to me and about our meeting agreements; they made vexatious and defamatory claims in emails.
One such email (below) is from SS to colleagues at The Priory Group (SS had no formal mental health qualifications). You will note claims are made about my mental health because I complained about those present at the meeting. SS also makes other spurious claims within this email, which did not match the recording of the meeting in September 2016.

 

SSemail102016_redacted

 

Again, in the interest of transparency, the below is a screenshot of case notes regarding a mental health assessment I was forced to attend in 2018 after a further distressing and stressful two years addressing care concerns for and on behalf of my vulnerable brother. You will note the qualified mental health assessor noted I was stressed but did not have any mental health disorder. Also below is my letter to EG sent shortly after I found there was no intention to uphold agreements made at the meeting in September 2016.

mha2018 (Large)

 

EGremeetingof14092016_Redacted

 

To date, I have not received data I requested regarding EG’s record of the meetings in 2016, nor a formal written apology regarding the vexatious and damaging accusations and allegations made by supposed professionals and staff of The Priory Group and LA, nor would Herefordshire Council correct false information recorded by their staff. I can only presume, from experience, this is a common practice.

 

 

Information Request and Hostile Refusal From Onside Advocacy

A couple of years ago, in 2017, I submitted a request for data to onside-advocacy.org.uk after they blocked my email address. 

I discovered staff had discussed in communications, how I should be ‘handled’ in future, implying I would be discriminated against when contacting the organisation, which has occurred, and after I had challenged the negligence of their provided advocates.

‘discuss how we deal with Chris contacting us in future’

The prejudice became more evident when I received a hostile email response from RT (Data Controller) of onside advocacy on 3rd October 2019 in response to my request for my data on 8th September 2019. The email chain can be viewed in a redacted format below with concerning parts highlighted.

Response to my subject access request

Gmail - SAR (onside 2019) Redacted_highlighted

I have published this in the interest of the public. Particularly those who are forced to deal with this organisation and might be concerned such response is a standard reply to anyone making a second or further request for personal data. Notably, as the data controller stated in the final communication ‘I wanted to make sure I was clear and used wording taken directly from legislation and the ICO website’.

You may notice the aggressive and unprofessional response, absolute rejection and immediate closure of my request conflicts with ICO guidance. 

They did not inform me of or about:

  • How they must consider a request in the context in which it is made and are responsible for demonstrating that it is manifestly unfounded.
  • My right to make a complaint to the ICO or another supervisory authority.
  • My ability to seek to enforce this right through a judicial remedy.

I believe the hostile and unprofessional response I received, if sent to some individuals with similar requests, could be a cause of distress, notably when having no choice but to deal with their organisation.

The information I have requested is essential to the book I am composing, for continuity of fact, and the eventual legal redress I wish to seek for my sibling and I.

As proof that onside have processed further data, below is a screenshot of my message to them on 13th March 2018, which was acknowledged yet received no response other than the whileincare Facebook profile being blocked.

 

 

The Priory: Teenage Mental Health Uncovered

I believe, everyone should watch this documentary, which aired on 18th April 2019, regarding The Priory Group:

The Priory: Teenage Mental Health Uncovered

You can see CCTV is used and operational in the Priory placement, yet to my knowledge, none of the incidents and likely others was reported.
In my opinion, this can only strengthen the case for CCTV in places where vulnerable adults live, and for it to be controlled and monitored independently.

For the interest of the public, I have a particular letter from DW (Director of Risk and Safety at The Priory Group) defending staff who accidentally filmed themselves, and later deleted the recording.
In the deleted and recovered recording, Priory Group staff admit to ‘more’ evidence being given to local authority social workers, yet I discovered it was wilfully ignored by them and concealed.

I hope to publish the letter in the coming weeks, along with the video recording of staff in the interest of the public, particularly those who have loved ones in Priory Group ‘care’.

 

Time between last family home visits

The timer below displays the number of days between the date my brother was allowed home to visit his mother and me, and today, without interference by Herefordshire Council or The Priory Group. Both organisations ignoring requests and forcing us to only have contact or home visits when convenient for them, denying him and us of private and family life for this period.

Since my brother was placed in the residential home, out of county and against his family’s wishes, his needs have been neglected and he has not been provided with adequate care and support nor communication aids or a reliable phone service and necessary equipment. The Priory Group and Herefordshire Council ignoring, not least, The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, since December 2013.

The severe restriction imposed on my brother had denied him access to a mobile phone I loaned to him for contact with us, and computer equipment, since November 2017 when it was confiscated from him by a carer at H House. Seeing some video recordings, including recovered deleted video confirmed my concerns.

 

Before this time my brother was not allowed home to visit his mother for some 54 days 2 hours, this due to Herefordshire Council refusing to allow us to meet at a chosen location or provide alternative support to him and our mother and I. Prior to this the longest periods were 64 days, 58 days and 23.5 hours, due to The Priory Group and H House wilfully ignoring a total of 18 of 24 requests.