Denied Communication Aid

Below is a redacted copy of a recently received letter from David Watts (Director of Risk and Safety at The Priory Group). It has taken almost three months for DW to write a specious reply to my request asking why my brother was denied access to the mobile phone loaned to him, and which my brother and I had setup especially with his disability needs in mind; and those of his mother’s.

In the letter DW claims to actively facilitate and encourage residents to maintain links with their family, this is insulting, not least to my brother and mother, as I have documents and recordings showing my brother has been repeatedly denied of his choice and family home visits; including for his 40th Birthday, his mother’s 87th Birthday and other established events. DW and his colleagues at H house have eroded family contact since late 2015, severely restricting phone contact to the points of taking away the mobile phone that my brother borrowed, which was for his sole use and which allowed us contact and privacy.



Regarding the phone which DW claims not to have examined, and which he requested staff take away from my brother, he states staff identified the phone was timed to switch on and record at a particular time of day, I will be writing to DW including to request that he provide factual evidence of his spurious claim and why he has taken almost three months to reply. In my understanding staffs disrespect of personal property of a resident and interfering with communication is, at least, yet another indication of institutional abuse.

Any reasonable person would consider even if a phone were capable of recording, as most mobile phones are, such could prove to be contrary to DW’s statement, and be in the best interest of the vulnerable person as a safeguard; particularly where recurring and ongoing inadequate care and support, and indications of institutional abuse have occurred and continue.

If there is nothing to hide at the residential home, there should be no reason for removing the mobile phone from my brother or denying him access to it, on mere speculation, whether he is or not remotely supported, Nor should DW demand he is not supported with using the phone by his family.

The below is my response to DW, I have requested in the letter that he provide evidence of the claims made concerning his staffs interference with my bothers loaned phone.