OMBUDSMAN WATCHERS RESOURCE CENTRE

REPORT

EMOTIONAL WATERBOARDING

Defending the Indefensible

Download the PDF version here

Response on behalf of complainant: Alice Naomi Austin (dob 10.2.22)

Local Government Ombudsman Report dated 4^th October 2010-10-12

Complaint Number 10 005 236

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Complaint EN 88919/0052

Summary prepared by: Nick Austin son and attorney of Mrs Alice Austin (aged 85years), the subject of an original complaint against social services working within the hospital environment. Mr Austin is the Chairman of the Landscape Channel, a satellite television programming service and father of three children. At the time of the original complaint (2007) he was unemployed and living in council emergency organise housing. This document and what happened to Alice Austin would not have been reported if she had entered hospital with dementia. She did not, but was diagnosed as “acute dementia” by doctors when the family requested that she be sectioned according to the Mental Health Act, as a result of the failure to treat his mother in hospital after a fall. Social Services then intervened in the healthcare process in order to avoid financial liability and sought to force Mr Austin to sign away his mother’s home, by instructing the hospital not to release his mother from hospital until an agreement was signed. This report has been produced because despite three years following an arduous complaints process, leading to rulings by the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman, neither organisation admit any fault in the process. This report calls for MPs and law makers to close a system that abuses the carers of the elderly in pursuit of justifying the unjustifiable, through a complaints process that is severely prejudiced in favour of any action by social workers, regardless of their morality or legality. It calls for justice for those who wish to complain and Mrs Austin in particular. It is claimed that the Local Government Ombudsman office is not fit for purpose and this complaint should be independently investigated by MPs and the Local Government Ombudsman offices should be closed.

Dated: 19^th November 2010

Notes to editors: This report refers to this LGO document and this PHSO document. The LGO document is at the provisional report stage ready for final publication. Mr Austin has responded to the LGO with this response. A conclusion is located at the end of the document.

THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE CIRCULATED FREELY TO THOSE INTERESTED IN MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION AND ABUSE

Introduction

I have prepared this report as a response on behalf of my mother who is mentally incapable and is the subject of the complaint before the Local Government Ombudsman number 10 005 236 and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman(“PHSO”) complaint number HS-56023. I have received the provisional Local Government Ombudsman Report which is intended to be a response to her complaint along with the final report of the PHSO. This response condemns the Local Government Ombudsman service showing it unfit for purpose. It fails my mother and as a final resort is completely ineffective in dealing with major failings in the care of the elderly. This report therefore calls for justice for my mother, which clearly cannot be obtained from this organisation. I have produced a summary at the end of this document and seek either a Judicial Review, by the authorities, so that the matter is investigated and justice obtained for my mother and the law operated within our hospitals, or ask for direct intervention by MPs as a cheaper and more efficient solution.

(Note: tab numbers alongside references confirm the presence of a written document in the bundle delivered with the complaint to both Ombudsman offices)

Complaint

The complaint relates to my mother, who entered hospital in Hastings, East Sussex, with no medical record of dementia. She was 85 years old when she had a fall and was admitted to the local hospital (the Conquest). In the process of being taken to hospital the paramedic falsely entered “probable dementia” on her admission notes. This resulted in an incorrect diagnosis of acute dementia (confirmed by the consultant psychiatrist some weeks later based upon the notes and MMSE score Tab43). This resulted in failure to treat my mother for a head injury – all of which is confirmed in my mother’s medical notes. In the following month my mother lost all capacity and mental abilities.

The written record confirms that the hospital stopped feeding my mother and she was locked in a “dementia ward” because it “was not their job to feed patients” and suggested that I bring in food for my mother and feed her myself. As a consequence a decision to discharge my mother was made by the hospital long before she saw a psychiatrist, who had never met my mother prior to hospitalisation and never spoke to me or anyone who knew her. My mother was falsely diagnosed acute dementia, because of the admission notes and exhibited symptoms of delirium, despite entering hospital with her sanity. The tragedy of this process is social workers took over the discharge process intent on avoiding costs, which they considered the patient should pay.

As a result of social services operating in the hospital taking over the discharge process procedures were put in place by the social workers, which denied my mother mental health treatment and resulted in a dispute between me, acting on behalf of my mother, and the social workers who wished to discharge my mother into a care home. Their view was that my mother was an acute dementia case, because they had been told that by the hospital and they took the view that she was forced by law to take a position in a care home at her own expense. My view was that she should be admitted for psychiatric care and be sectioned according to the requirements of the Mental Health Act for observation and treatment. Evidence to confirm this was provided in person and to the Ombudsmen under Tab17

The core of my complaint was that having asked for my mother to be sectioned, under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, the social workers and hospital had a duty of care for my mother to make sure that the process that was requested took place. It was clear to me that the decision not to section was made for funding reasons and nothing to do with the care of my mother. However a system exists which the hospital, in conjunction with social workers inside the hospital, implemented that denied my mother the process that the law requires when requested. This process is designed as a cost saving initiative and does not allow anyone who is diagnosed as a dementia patient to be protected by the Mental Health Act. Indeed now the Incapacity Act exists patients cannot rise through the glass ceiling implemented by a well thought out, but inherently faulty processes, which should let people like my mother, who was not a dementia patient to suffer the abuse of dementia discrimination in a hospital. An abuse that stopped her being treated.

As a result of my failure to sign an agreement that would sign away her assets social workers forcibly sought to “place” my mother in a home at her expense and failed to listen to me. It was explained to me that this was a “best interests” decision, whereas the process took no account of my mother’s interests at all. It was solely being taken in the best financial interests of those charged with the duty of caring for my mother. Psychiatrists did not observe my mothers progress (and decline) and a crisis point was reached because I would not agree to sign an agreement to fund her care that I did not consider legal. My mother had not been sectioned and no proper investigation of her mental health took place, because the psychiatrist was too busy and on holiday when my mother was admitted to hospital.

The process that was put in place was designed to remove my mother to a care home where she would be locked in a home without the protections written into law at her personal cost - never to be freed and without a means to obtain freedom. No process was put in place that explained to me what the social workers wanted to do was lock my mother in a home for the rest of her life. It was given the euphemism of “resettlement” as if the truth of a living death could not be spoken.

A crisis therefore arose when I refused to agree to sign away her life and property by signing an agreement with the home that the social workers wanted her to be put in. My mother was not being fed adequately in hospital, because she was deemed a dementia case. She was clearly in danger of dying through loss of weight and extreme emotional duress was applied to me and the family. Social services refused to discharge my mother from the hospital, despite there being no medical reason for her further detention. The social workers instructed the hospital not to release my mother and the head of Adult Social Care in East Sussex was informed in writing that his officers were using a blatant form of coercion in order to force the family to sign over my mother’s property and home unlawfully. The Head of Adult Social Care, Mr Hinkley, did not ring me or seek to contact me to resolve the issue – he deserted me and my mother when we were at our most vulnerable.

In order to extricate themselves from this position, which went on for nearly two weeks in November 2007 and clearly could not continue, social workers agreed a deal with the NHS Trust. The agreement that they put in place was that the NHS would fund my mother’s care, because I had then made a formal written complaint. The NHS agreed in writing that until the adjudication of my mother’s appeal was obtained under the appeal process they would fund my mothers care. I did not set up this funding process. In the meantime social workers initiated a completely unjustified investigation into me as a means of dealing with my complaint against them. An extremely biased report was commissioned by an investigating officer who attended my office. It was clear when the report was produced that it had nothing to do with investigating my mother’s complaint, but was about investigating me, with a view to using that report to undermine my credibility. I read the report to be close to slanderous in its allegations and reported this to the complaints Appeal Panel Chairman. It was clear to me that the people who I was dealing with saw me as a homeless nobody and they could do with me what they did with everyone.

My response to that report was to write an equally devastating critique of the investigators report, which was accepted at the subsequent Appeal Panel hearing. A copy of that document can be found at tab 40 of the documents submitted and is included later in this report at the appropriate point. The panel hearing was held before an Independent Review Panel chairwoman who found in my mothers favour on a number of items. One of those items was that it was agreed by all concerned that coercion was used by Social Services officers in order to get the family to sign an agreement to fund the home. I received a response which had no value whatsoever, because the Local Authority then retaliated by instigated legal proceedings against me and my mother personally, knowing we had no financial ability to respond.

At the time these events happened I was homeless, because I confirmed this to Ruth Nathan, who wrote the report. She did not include this information in her document (because as she told me “I don’t want to know that Mr Austin”). I now see the significance of this. We had given up our home in order to allow us to move into my mothers home, which my mother had agreed to buy in St Leonards the previous year, prior to her hospitalisation. That home had fallen through whilst she was in the new care home and so we needed to buy another home in order to carry out my mother’s wishes, who was by then completely incapacitated.

I took it as my duty to her and my family to continue to buy a property for her and her family to live in and did so that summer. Social workers took the view that this was a misappropriation of funds, despite being fully informed as to the family circumstances with nothing hidden. It didn’t matter to them what my mother had planned or had implemented prior to her fall. They believed they were entitled, as a result of current legislation, to take her money and property. With this in mind irrespective of any issues raised in the complaints process they implemented their legal action completely ignoring all request for assistance from me on behalf of my mother and my family. They were not interested in what my mother had organised or what rights she had to continue to own a home. The Incapacity Act, which had come into force whilst my mother was in hospital, makes it quite clear that I had a legal obligation as her attorney to carry out her wishes and not to alter them. Social worker on the other hand told me in hospital that I must sign an agreement that deprived her of her assets without legal redress. It was quite clear to me that I was being subjected to a process that would in any normal circumstances end up with carers complying with social services irrespective of my mother’s legal rights. This would mean that even if they were not entitled to be paid the legal effect was to force the money into the arms of the Local Authority.

At the end of the year following my mothers fall (2008) my mother was still in the home which she had been locked in by social workers (called the Bannow home). My mother sought to escape and was once caught almost naked in a bar on the seas front. She was locked in the home and unable to be removed legally. Far from being in the best care she had six falls whilst there, including falling down the stairs and breaking her hip. At that stage she was put into a wheelchair never to recover. The application for Continuing NHS Care funding was turned down, because it was ruled that my mother was considered capable of receiving social care, despite having no mental ability or the capacity to communicate whatsoever. We went to appeal and suffered the indignity of having our 80 page report rejected by the Chairman, who clearly had no intention of allowing the evidence we presented to be given to the independent committee. The appeal process for Continuing Care in East Sussex turned into a complete farce, because the evidence presented was not even looked at by the Panel.

Once diagnosed as “demented” my mother had no rights and I was ignored and seen as a rogue who needed to be pursued by any means possible. I think there was a concerted effort to bring some form of retribution to bear upon me, because I refused to sign the agreement which I was told I must sign. I believe the evidence shows that I was seen as a “difficulty” that could be suppressed if not by coercion then by the law.

Pursuing me involved seeking to blacken my name, through the Ruth Nathan report, and later by refusing to section my mother again when the request was repeated in conjunction with the family doctor. This legalistic attack upon my care of my mother was an abuse of process applied to me, which proved completely ineffective because it was wholly wrong and a malign attack upon my credibility as my mothers sole carer. I was the one raising the complaints that my mother was being abused, because of her loss of freedom and the lack of treatment, trying to protect my mother from what appeared to be an institutional abuse, that would never have come to light if my mother really had dementia in the normal way. The people charged with the care of my mother used that opportunity to launch attacks against me – with a view to using that information either in court or at appeal, and now with the Ombudsman Service to discredit my evidence. That process was put in place in order that my mother would be locked up in a home without any legal redress and without appeal. No sectioning process had taken place and the people involved appeared to believe they could use any process to implement their will, because this was “normal”. It may be normal for social workers and it may be normal for the Ombudsman, but I can tell you it is not normal for my mum or me.

My mother eventually had to be moved to a new home which had medical facilities, because those six falls knocked the stuffing out of her. What little there was left of my mum after these events dropped to near zero after she was left on her own to have the falls. At that stage the NHS stopped funding my mother and the Local Authority took over financial responsibility for my mother’s care on 8^th December 2008 (tab 64). They took over that responsibility despite an agreement by the NHS to pay for the care of my mother until the outcome of the Continuing Care appeal. That appeal eventually showed the hospital guilty of maladministration and that my mother needed to have a proper new assessment.

OBSERVATION

Looking at the Local Government Ombudsman report in detail the thing that is clear to me is that the Ombudsman’s office have not told the reader of the report the story that falls behind this complaint. It is hiding the darkness that is hidden in this complaint and has written an exhaustive preamble which leads the reader to the conclusion that the complaint is not upheld and this is a complaint about funding – this is a misrepresentation of the complaint I made against the people operating in East Sussex Adult Social Services.

The report takes the same position as Ruth Natham, seeking to implement a decision based upon the concept that there is an underlying attempt to avoid charges. Reading the Ombudsman report I see the detail relating to charges, but do not see the detail in regards to my mother’s care or the abuse process as applied specifically to her. The focus is to explain why charges must be made. Something that anyone who is well read on the law will take for granted. When dealing with those specific issues I shall explain exactly why the Ombudsman’s decision is flawed and a failure of common justice for my mother.

One core fault with the methodology employed by the Ombudsman’s office is that the approach is not in place to investigate my mother’s complaint that she was abused. My complaint was that social services used coercion to enforce a contract that they were not entitled to seek, to force this through illegitimate means, and the claim that this resulted in unlawful detention.

How is it possible to get to the root of the problem if the first issue that comes into play is the one contained in Clause 3. of the LGO draft report This states in the Ombudsman preamble that the report “does not generally question professional judgements of social workers”, since the complaint could be condensed to one that the social workers made the wrong professional judgement. What am I supposed to do when having obtained an Appeal Panel judgement in my favour the process of the abuse continues against me and my mother?

Clause 12 of the response by the Ombudsman tells us that Approved Mental Health Practitioners cannot be required by an employer or a nearest relative to section a patient. It tells us that they are required to exercise their professional judgement (which the Ombudsman does and cannot question) – meaning that as in this case the Approved Mental Health Practitioners employed by the Council are the gatekeepers to the Mental Health Service who can simply ignore any patient request. This will mean they will not be investigated – as has happened with my mother. Indeed if I understand this preamble correctly what it is telling me is there is no method to ensure a sectioning request is carried out at all, especially if it is Local Authority policy not to section those who are thought to be demented – as is shown by the documentation to be my mother’s case.

This complaint was made in November 2007 and investigation delayed and delayed. The reason I was told it was delayed was because the complaint against the Health Service personnel, who were also involved in the actions taken against my mother, failed to respond to the complaint. The complaint I made was split into two – the one half dealing with the coercion – upon which maladministration was eventually reluctantly conceded at Appeal, and the second relating to the failure to section my mother when the requests were made.

To my absolute amazement there was no written or spoken response to me throughout this last three year period, since my mother entered hospital, relating to sectioning. No paperwork whatsoever by any professional involved in my mother’s case. No paperwork between professionals concerned with my mothers case – rather strange you might justly ask? You might have thought that when a letter requesting sectioning, sent to three separate officers who have are involved in this, received no response from any of them. Not even a “sorry I cant deal with that”.

I was told by the officer acting for the Health Service Ombudsman that three years after making the complaint in 2010 they were unable to obtain a single document from the Health Service Trust relating to the complaint regarding the failure in the application to section my mother, which was made on three separate occasions. It was the most remarkable and I believe damming information of all – namely that the Ombudsman’s Office can only come to judgements based upon documents written by the Trust and my documents were not considered. In the absence of any documentation over the three year period my mother could never receive justice in regards to this case. This is because no matter how many times I may meet or discuss or write to those dealing with my mother the judgement would never go against the Trust if there was no documentation from them. The cards were stacked in favour of the Trust from the beginning and this appears to be an unwritten strategy designed to circumvent the complaints process. I suspect this is a process that has been put in place by lawyers and I demand to know why this is the case – it smells of a major cover up to me.

I do not know if the LGO is confined by the same rule, but the failure to recognise the key issues or deal with them in my view makes this complaints process unfit for purpose. It looks to me like the lawyers are one step ahead of the game and there are unwritten rules that ensure complainants fail if they have or are suspected of having dementia.

KEY FACTS REVIEW

The key facts are listed under Clause 19. of the LGO draft report. The key documents list is a simplification of the relevant key dates and meetings. I have reviewed these and make the following observation and omissions:

1. Key Fact 4^th April 2007 Alice Austin puts her property on the market in Essex to buy a new property in St Leonards to live with her son who is living in council property (2 bedrooms and one living room for family of two adults and four children) as emergency accommodation in 2003 by Rother District Council. (Tab 2)

2. Key fact 30^th August 2007. A meeting was held in the hospital the morning after my mother was admitted to hospital. It was completely inappropriate for the team to propose that my mother be sent to a care home for respite care at her own expense when she was admitted to hospital the previous night with a broken pubic bone and had lost her mental capacity because of a head injury. This meeting indicates that the system employed does not process what the team consider dementia patients in the hospital system. The fact that my mother was admitted to Murray Ward as a dementia patient, because she was 85years old and her notes stated this upon entry to hospital, confirmed the physical segregation of dementia patients is taking place in hospitals.

3. Key fact 10^th September 2007 (tab 6 page 15) No medical interventions required written into medical notes. My mother stayed in hospital from then until 15^th December as a dementia patient.

4. Key fact 20^th September 2007 Local Authority write to Pensions office and reduce my mothers benefits entitlement from £171.76 plus £43.15 (total £214.91) to £171.76per week

5. Key fact 24^th September 2007 (tab6 page 23) There is no reference to the fact my mother’s medical notes show she was ready for resettlement on 24^th September subject to psychiatric review. The key facts do not record the fact that the psychiatrist did not see my mother until after the discharge decision had been made by the hospital. In other words the fact that my mother was considered to have dementia meant the process that was applied to her denied her a proper psychiatric decision making process, because the decision to discharge had been made before the psychiatrist saw her. The record shows that the psychiatrist did not have access to any previous record of my mother’s mental state and therefore reached his decision based upon what the notes told him. Those notes were based upon observations that would have had a different outcome if the psychiatrist was aware that there was no previous dementia symptoms prior to entering hospital.

6. Key fact 1^st October 2007 Consultant psychiatrist sees my mother once for ten minutes and diagnoses acute dementia – and hands over to social services for discharge.

7. Key fact 3rd October 2007 Meeting between myself and social workers who refused to accept a written request to section my mother whilst it was clear to the family that my mother had lost her sense of self and was completely incapable. The focus of that meeting by the hospital representative Brenda Pegman (social worker) was to discharge my mother and place her in a care home at her own expense, without consideration to my mothers best interests or mental health.

8. Key fact 11^th October 2007 (tab 6 page 32) Occupational therapists diagnosis that the patient is not orientated towards time or place and has limited safety awareness. This information was not passed to social workers who organised a room in a care home next to a staircase, down which my mother fell when in the home. That information was not passed to those who had the responsibility of care for my mother.

9. Key fact 11^th October 2007 (tab14) The best interests meeting was not signed off by me. I did not agree everything what is written in those notes. Those notes were written up by a social worker and did not follow the rules as to what constitutes a proper best interests meeting, because my mothers best interests were not discussed. The sole discussion was whether my mother should be discharged into a home and who was to pay. The social worker made that decision without consideration to the family’s written requests on 3^rd October for her to be sectioned. It is an unjust assumption to believe that because the social worker produced this document, without my consent or involvement, it entitles in law a social worker to force terms upon the patient and family. This patient, my mother, could not take the decision herself, and had appointed me as her attorney to take decisions for her. I did not sign those notes off and did not agree them as written. It is unjust to assume that because they exist they were agreed.

10. Key fact 27^th October 2007 (Tab 7/61) Weight of Alice Austin recorded at 48.6Kg confirming 10% weight loss since admittance to hospital – the need to remove Alice and feed her was acute, because she was not being fed in hospital and would die shortly.

11. Key fact 30^th October 2007 The visit by the financial assessor, sent by the Council in preparation for my mothers discharge into a home recorded that my mother’s home was in the process of being sold and another home was being bought at the time of her hospitalisation. The LGO report failed to note an important fact: that the assessor confirmed that no funds would need to be paid to the Council until such time as the NHS discharged their responsibility to fund my mother, whilst she was within their care. The twelve week disregard applied only when the patient moved into the home which was their responsibility to pay – not before. Paragraph 9 of the Ombudsmans report claims that Councils have the right to pursue debts brought within three years under the S56 of the National Assistance Act, but only where the provisions of that Act apply. Those provision cannot apply to my mother because she was in the care of the NHS. It is wholly unjust and wrong to quote this law as justification for charging when the patient is in a hospital and has entered the hospital of their own free will. There is case history on this fact and the Ombudsmans office should know this. The National Assistance Act is not there to force contracts into place and cannot be used as justification. The Act is there to protect those who are not in care.

12. Key fact 1^st November 2007 tab18, tab62 I agree that loan funding would be sought subject to a number of conditions – none of which were implemented by the Council. It is not reported that the Council failed to complete their stated obligations.

13. Key fact 2^nd November 2007. The LGO report states in the key facts that I stopped my mothers discharge. This is a wholly wrong and highly prejudicial statement that is a slander on my name as my mother’s legal representative and her carer. The LGO report states what the social workers have repeated in order to cover up the disgraceful behaviour they were expected to perform. They must have told the LGO that I did not want to sign a contract with the care home because it doesn’t come from the recorded documents I sent to the LGO. To make this accusation in print shows that the Ombudsman’s Office has lost the plot and is prepared to say or write anything to support social workers regardless of what they do. Why would this statement be made when it was agreed at the appeal panel hearing that coercion was used. The coercion was the failure to release my mother. It is impossible for the LGO statement to be true and shows an unfair and unjust bias against my mothers case. My mothers medical notes state “”now Brenda not for discharge tomorrow” and “Alice not to be discharged or moved from ward until she (Brenda) gives OK”

14. It is clear to me from what the LGO have stated as a key point is they have not investigated this or even understood the significance of what they write. Either that or the significance is so great they have had to invent a convoluted and unjust reason to disregard the evidence of those who were employed to provide a just decision. The decision to stop discharge was taken by the social workers under the instructions of Mr Hinkley’s office. A consequence of that is I wrote to him a number of letters over the following 14 days of high stress activity where I was trying to get my mother released from hospital and the Adult Care department as East Sussex County Council were hell bent on forcing me to sign a care agreement by holding on to my mother in a locked ward. I was so desperate I even sought to get a human rights lawyer involved and the LGO report tells me that I stopped discharge. I am more than a little upset with this decision because it endorses the abuse. Those letters submitted to the LGO make it quite clear to an impartial viewer that my mother was detained in order to obtain a funding agreement. This was not denied at the Appeal Panel hearing. Social Services had every opportunity to defend their actions, but sat there like children caught by teacher. Social workers sought to justify this by falsely claiming that I stopped discharge and the LGO report has repeated that. This tells me that firstly the LGO have not investigated this matter or if they have they have taken the view of the social workers against the view of the Independent Review Panel, when there is written evidence that this simply is not a true version of events. It produces an unjust decision based upon information that is untruthful. It proves to me that my complaint has not been investigated properly and the Ombudsman office is just seeking to rubber stamp anything that the social workers give them.

15. Key fact 2nd November 2007 The information provided in the LGO report paragraph stating that on 2^th November I informed the council that I was confused about my mothers legal entitlement and was seeking advice prior to signing the contract is a complete fabrication. I have always known my mothers legal entitlement and it is a very damaging statement that misrepresents my position and that of my mother. There is no reference in any of my documentation to confusion. If there is confusion it was by social worker who could not understand the legal issues and saw nothing wrong in detaining my mother against my will. I needed legal advice in relation to getting my mother released and there is evidence of that in the documentation at the Appeal Panel hearing, including a letter to the eminent human rights lawyer. Why would the LGO make this derogatory comment that is not supported by evidence, other than to support an illegitimate decision making process?

16. Key fact 6^th November meeting was called by me with the doctors, because I wanted my mother discharged and released from the ward, as recorded in the letters to Mr Hinkley. The social worker did not attend that meeting because I did not want her present and she did not know about it. The doctor recorded in my mothers hospital notes on 6^th November 2007 Tab7 page 41) “we all agreed that Mrs Austin doesn’t need to stay in the hospital – should be discharged to care home to meet her needs – we will inform social service”.

17. On the very same day the nursing staff record records “meeting with Dr MJR and son, was anxious about mother didn’t want discharge on Saturday because refused to sign papers as after 12 weeks he will have to pay”.

18. The information recorded in the notes above para16 and para17 could only be interpreted by a proper investigation to be fraudulent misinformation, recorded to cover the position the social worker had adopted. The hospital notes do not reconcile with the each other, both sets of information cannot be correct because they directly contradict one and other. Notes entered under clause 17. above are what the social worker told the nurse on my mother’s ward in order to stitch my mothers case up. She didn’t know that another meeting was being held by me on the same day to get my mother released with my mothers doctor on the same day because there was a conspiracy to detain my mother by social services to force me to sign a funding agreement. The social worker rang the ward and gave them false information seeking to blame me for detaining my mother in the ward, in order that at a later date any complaint that I made would be invalidated by this false information – a corrupt implementation of force to fund the Local Authority. The evidence of the meeting with the doctor on the same day shows maladministration at work. That maladministration was hell bent on forcing me to sign a funding agreement for a home which I would not sign. It was a clear attempt to fraudulently obtain my mother’s assets. A conclusion must be reached that someone is lying and that someone was not me, because I raised the complaint in the first place and attended the meeting with the doctors. It isn’t rocket science to see that the message given to the nursing staff is a cover up, designed to benefit social services, which the Ombudsman has not done its duty to the patient to investigate. Worse than that, having confirmed with me that the LGO had read all the documentation in the email dated 10^th November 2010 it confirms the LGO complicit in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

19. Key fact 7^th November 2007(Tab7 page81) It is a key fact that irrespective of this bungled cover up the social worker the previous day, it is recorded in the ward notes ordering the nursing staff not to discharge my mother, or move her from the ward until the social worker “gives the OK”. The decision to discharge had been made by the doctors and that was known. Taken with the other correspondence related to this unlawful detention of my mother, it is a dereliction of duty to my mother, the patient, by the Ombudsman Service to rule that this process is acceptable practice for any social worker.

20. Paragraph 2 on the second page of the LGO key facts (second from top of page) states “He asked the council to fund the EMI placement and said that his mother was at the hospital against her will”. Again this does not fit what I said and wrote to the professionals involved. Why would I ask for the Council to fund her placement and at the same time be trying to get her released from the ward into my own care? This is a complete nonsense and really strange that the person who is investigating this complaint fails to see how illogical both statements in the same sentence are? The LGO are repeating false information given to them verbatim from social workers and cannot see the effect what of it is they are writing – even a child can see this cannot be true.

21. This information in para 20 above must have been supplied by the social worker about whom the complaint is made. If it was known at this time that I was buying a home for Mrs Austin, why did the council claim that they were entitled to the money, which would be tied up in another property? This doesn’t reconcile with what happened either. This report is full of inconsistencies that undermine its authority.

22. It is clear to me that the Ombudsmen has accepted the social workers statement at face value, despite the correspondence showing that social services knew a long time before my mothers detention in November 2007 I would not agree to sign anything that I had not seen or had not received legal advice on. This is a proper due diligence position that should be expected, but clearly not normal in the world that social services operates. These events are recorded as a key fact at this date incorrectly in order to prejudice my mothers case against the social workers, because it infers by their presence at that date that the decision is funding related, which it has nothing whatsoever to do with. I would not sign any agreement then because my mother was being held in a locked ward and I wanted her released. The fact that the Council had been informed about the process of buying a new property on 30^th October (Key fact above) makes this statement irrelevant unless viewed in a deliberate prejudicial light.

23. Key fact 15^th November 2007 The decision to fund my mother’s care pending her appeal for Continuing Care funding was not taken by me. It was a decision brokered by social services and the NHS because they would not discharge my mother from hospital and I would not agree to sign an agreement with the home on her behalf. It is not right or legal to force an attorney to sign a funding agreement as the cost of discharge of their mother from the hospital. The complete integration of social services within the hospital management that allowed that brokerage in order to extricate the two organisations from a legal crisis is the reason I asked for a joint inquiry between the Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman – a request both organisations have refused. However it can be seen the joint inquiry approach has been shown to be prejudiced by the methodology used by the Ombudsman’s office, whereby the evidence presented by the complainant is not considered or properly investigated.

24. Key fact 19^th November 2007 The South East Coast NHS confirm in writing they will provide my mother with NHS funding “pending resolution of my mother’s appeal” (for NHS Continuing Healthcare funding). This means there is no legal liability due to social services on behalf of my mother until my mother has been through the appeal process and legal liability for care of my mother passes back to social service. An event that has not yet happened. Yet despite this information being provided to Adult Social Services the decision was made to issue proceedings against me and my mother as retribution for failing to do what I was not legally required to do.

25. Key Fact 6^th December 2007 Social Services write to Benefits Office to reduce my mothers benefits allowance from £171.76 to £123.31 upon the basis that my mother does not need the money because she is not self funding – contrary to the actual decision that was made by social workers at the time it was claimed in court that my mother was responsible for her own funding care. If my mother was supposed to be self funded why did the council remove her funds – despite being requested this is not explained in the LGO report? Since my mother was in the care of the NHS at the time removal of those funds needs explanation and refunding. The failure to rule and refund is unjust.

26. Key fact 1^st December 2007 Rother Homes served notice that Mr and Mrs Austin will be vacating the council premises at Forewood Rise Crowhurst to move into a property to be purchased by Mrs Austin in St Leonards. Rother homes write back to say termination date must be end of January 2008 – at which time property is vacated. Family made homeless until new property completes

27. Key Fact 1^st February 2008 First date my mother is seen by the psychiatrist since she was seen briefly on 1^st October 2007 in the hospital ward. Psychiatrist sees improvement in my mothers mental health and agrees she has recovered enough to prescribe ARICEPT and tells me that my mother “never had acute dementia”, confirming that the diagnosis presented by social services as a reason to detain my mother was inherently flawed.

28. Key Fact 12^th June 2008 a further letter is received from the East Sussex NHS Trust confirming that “all costs of funding the patients care until we have received the outcome of the appeal from the South East Strategic Health Authority” was received (Tab 37).

29. Key fact: Undated the LGO report states “The continuing healthcare appeal was unsuccessful” para 4 of second page of key facts. The date that this notification came through is not recorded as October 2008. The complaint cannot be described as unsuccessful at that time because it moved to the next level of complaint to the Health Service Ombudsman for adjudication. This statement is misleading and inaccurate. There was consent from the NHS in writing to pay for care pending the outcome of the appeal, confirming the continuation of the funding (Tab 37). It was decided by the Health Serviceman Ombudsman, according to the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 to be a case of maladministration at Review Panel by the NHS administration. In other words my mother’s case to receive Continuing Healthcare funding from the NHS was severely prejudiced. That decision was made on 30^th July 2010 (case number HS-56023). It cannot be just that as a result of social services deciding not to support my mother’s written record of NHS funding Social Services should then charge my mother when the NHS Ombudsman has ruled that the NHS caused the problem in the first place. It surely must be maladministration for social services to fail to take up my mothers case on her behalf, when she is in their care and there is written supporting evidence for the funding being due from the NHS. The failure for the LGO to note the issue, rule on it and rectify this mistake is wholly unjust.

30. Key fact 16^th June 2008 (Tab38) The Council wrote to me stating the NHS funding for my mother would cease on 28^th June 2008 despite ongoing appeal and letter from NHS confirming no legal responsibility for Council to fund my mother until the outcome of the appeal process was adjudicated. No-one at the Council or Social Services was interested in acting for my mother’s interests. It is a fact that is shown in the documentation that the Council sought to obtain funding from my mother through me, her direct family, without any legal liability at that time. This is not reported in the LGO document or ruled upon. To charge patients in the care of the NHS for services supplied by the NHS cannot be either just nor a process that is acceptable practice. The failure of the LGO to rule that this is maladministration and rule that a refund is due shows that there is no justice in this report for the common man if they come up against social services maladministration with the Ombudsman underwriting anything they may care to do.

31. Key fact 31^st July 2008 Funds from sale of mothers house in Essex sent to solicitor to complete purchase of my mothers new property in St Leonards (Tab4)

32. Key fact 3^rd September 2008 The property which was planned by my mother to be her home in which she and her family would live completes at 19a Albany Road St Leonards. I move in with family as planned by my mother and together with my family are no longer homeless.

33. Key fact 13^th October 2008 Independent Review Panel convened (Tab 45) The council had commissioned a report with a view to seeking to undermine the legitimacy of my mother’s complaint by making out that I was acting in an improper way. My critique of that report was dealt with at the Panel hearing and my assertions were not challenged by the Council who accepted the response. I had claimed that coercion had been used in order to obtain a funding agreement. That claim was accepted by all concerned. The case relating to failure to section my mother was not addressed and the reason it was necessary to continue the complaint to Ombudsman level.

34. Key fact 13^th November 2008 Council write to me (Tab49) claiming nearly a year after my mother was in their care that funding my mother is not their responsibility, because it was the liability of the Council (Essex Council). where she used to live, before she moved in with me(East Sussex). This was a clear and blatant attempt to avoid financial liability for funding irrespective of the facts of the case.

35. Key fact 17^th November 2008(tab 50/51) I request in writing David Millen, who oversaw the Social Services Review Panel hearing to have my mother sectioned under the terms of the Mental Health Act to test the veracity of his statement at the Appeal panel hearing that a sectioning request could be made at any time. Social services failed to take any action or deal with the matter on the phone or through correspondence. I also make the same request to Ethel Trigg Head of Continuing Care Assessment Team – both requests ignored – showing collusion. Both requests ignored by all included in correspondence.

36. Key fact 19^th November 2008(tab 52) As a further test of veracity I request in writing my mothers psychiatrist Dr Stephens section my mother – that request ignored. I am told at a personal visit that the request is “with the legal people” but the name or address of the legal people would not provided.

37. Key fact 25^th November 2008(tab 56) Keith Hinkley writes to me to confirm his agreement with the judgment of the Independent Review Panel, but notably does not apologise for the actions taken. It is to me a clear indication that the Review Panel process has no teeth and is a waste of the time of complainants, as well as a waste of money for the Government. Huge emotional pressure comes to bear on relatives seeking justice for their relatives and this process is abusive in the manner in which they are dealt. It costs nothing to apologise when you are knowingly at fault.

38. Key fact 27^th November 2008(tab 57) I visit my mother’s doctor who in turn agrees to refer my mother to the psychiatrist within the control of the Local Authority for the sectioning process. My mother’s doctor does not reject the process, but tells me the Local Authority may not authorise it, because my mother is diagnosed with dementia and therefore not able to be sectioned, regardless of the fact she is severely mentally impaired. He tells me funding is supplied by the Local Authority and they will not pay for sectioning to a care home, irrespective of what the law requires, even when the family doctor is prepared to carry out the process. This is an abuse of the legal process. The fact that the LGO have not ruled or drawn attention to this confirms they are complicit in covering up the circumstances attached to this case. Otherwise the issue would have been dealt with and not ignored.

39. Key fact 12^th December 2008 Social services meeting in St Leonards (Tab 62) where I confirm yet again that I will agree loan funding provide it is legal and abides by CRAG rules when funding is due. It is agreed I will be sent a funding agreement by the Local Authority when funding is due - none is sent by the Local Authority. At almost every meeting held with Social Services misrepresentations were made to me and yet no-where in the report is anyone held to account for those misrepresentations or failure to deliver what they had promised. If the LGO are unable to identify blame or apportion it I can see no reason to be involved in the complaints process as it is currently organised.

40. Key fact 28^th November 2008 My mother’s doctor visits her in her home as a result of my new request that she now be sectioned again and he agrees that the process could be applied for. He writes to the psychiatric service requesting a meeting be held to conduct that process – no response is received to this request. It is as if the Mental Health Act does not apply in East Sussex to people who are 85years old or older.

41. Key fact 8^th December 2008 NHS Primary Care Trust rejects unlawfully my mothers application for Continuing Care Funding. Based upon a decision obtained through the application of a process that was designed to remove her right to a proper assessment and eventually rules by the PHSO as rejected through “maladministration”. I can read a report as well as anyone else and what the report told me between the lines was this application made by my mother was not defendable. The local NHS Trust didn’t even try to justify rejecting my mother with the due diligence of proper health reports – they did it as they were allowed to by the process in place. They thought they could get away with it and nearly did. The decision to reject my mother was funding related and nothing to do with care or duty to the patient.

42. Key fact 15^th December 2008 My mothers care home Bannow write (Tab61) to confirm my mother is too ill to be looked after them any more.

43. Key fact 15^th December 2008 Social Services write to Pension Office reducing my mothers pension and benefits by a further £103.80 as a nursing needs allowance, leaving my mother with a total of £24.34 a week as a result of determining that she is self funding. A decision designed to force her relatives to sell her property, as this does not leave enough funds from my mother to pay the most basis self funding costs. My mother is left with just enough to pay personal care expenditure and nothing else, despite owning her own property and being able to maintain it previous to hospitalisation. I asked the LGO for a ruling on this issue and none has been provided. This is unjust failure to avoid the duty of care to those who are in the care of the Adult Social Services..

44. Key fact 27^th April 2009 the Council tell the nursing home that my mother occupies that it is now their responsibility to get me to sign a funding agreement directly with them. I have no contractual arrangement with the home and all arrangements to this date have been made by the Local Authority or NHS. The home now send me an agreement which is the first I have seen. I reject this because my mother is being funded under the NHS agreement to fund until the outcome of the continuing care appeal is completed.

45. Key fact 5^th May 2009 I am 60 years old and living in my mothers property which is owned by her at 19a Albany Road St Leonards

Those issues listed in the key facts that are undated should be dated.

LGO PROVISIONAL DECISION

1. In order to understand the issues in this case I think it is important to make the point that a simplistic approach to this complaint does not serve to produce a just decision for my mother, or is of benefit to the community at large – especially those who might be misdiagnosed as demented, just because they are old when admitted to hospital with a fall. The failings in this case are not highlighted by simplifying them to the point where they disappear and become acceptable behaviour.

2. Clause 21 of the Provisional View is a flawed statement of fact since it refers to the discredited report prepared by Ruth Nathan for the Council in preparation for the Review Panel hearing as “sound” undermining the credibility of the LGO. The full detail of that report was presented to the Independent Review Panel and it was accepted as a legitimate response. I have published it at this web address: www.landscapehd.com/ombudsmen/nathanresponse.pdf since it is important that this case is now open to public scrutiny. I am unhappy with the idea that this response is open to personal interpretation, when the evidence has been accepted by the Independent Review Panel – a process that took a year of preparation and correspondence.

3. My critique of the work of Ms Nathan, upon which the LGO conclusion is based states the report “is thorough, adequate in scope and on the whole, reaches sound, evidence based conclusions”. This identifies a major flaw in the methodology of the conclusions reached, because it relies upon this evidence, to the exclusion of a host of contrary information.

4. The report to which the LGO refers was presented to me as being an investigation of my mother’s complaints, by a person who was independent of those involved in the case. As shown at the Appeal Panel hearing it was actually prepared as a document designed to undermine my position as my mother’s attorney. Now it is presented as solid evidence based document entitled to be relied upon by the highest level of complaint, despite being undermined completely in the earlier complaints process. This is akin to going to the police only to know they will lock you up if you complain about them. I have to ask is this how justice operates for the demented?

5. What the LGO is relying upon is an organisation’s evidence where a member of the public raises concerns that their mother is suffering a human rights abuse, they do not investigate the complaint, because it features actions of their own people. Instead they investigate and pursue the person complaining. This is in a pretty direct and mentally aggressive attempt to divert that person from continuing. That aggressive action firstly starts with threats (written and spoken – as documented), moves to direct action in my mothers case, by seeking to force contractual closure of a contract never seen and one that will have the effect of repatriating all her worldly wealth to the coffers of those pursuing the action. Then they turn the knife in the open wound by refusing to let the hospital discharge her, when her life is at threat from failing to feed her. Then as the final resort litigation is issued, even when others have given written undertakings to pay. That is not the legitimate way to protect those who have lost their minds and complain. Even when the points are won in the extended and mentally draining process of going through level after level of complaints process one after the other, the discredited documents are re-risen like the phoenix as legitimate again. Excuse me for being cynical of this process, but the LGO are being taken in, or more likely are part of that process in seeking to justify the actions taken by those responsible. Any reasonable man must by any standard of healthcare or care of the elderly be judged inappropriate and plainly unfair. The fact the LGO fall on the side of these responsible for this abuse of the children of the demented leaves me exhausted and even more determined to fight on.

6. I do not read the word “complex” in the LGO report (para 21) to mean that the basic principles of care are entitled to be left out of any report or conclusion. In regards to the investigating officers report, upon which the LGO states they rely so heavily (para 21 ) I must respond that it is full of bias and as discussed at the second Appeal panel hearing has absolutely no relevance to the complaint being raised at that time or this. It does not deal with my mother, the abuse she suffered or the remedies available. The whole basis of that report was to firstly deceive me into thinking it was about getting a fair view of what had happened, but in practice the sole focus of the report is to justify charging people for care – something I do not dispute and the LGO slander me by association with that concept. A bright mind can see that the LGO pen is attacking the case from the perspective of defence – this does not represent legitimate authority.

7. I did not complain about fees, I complained about what happened to my mother. The investigating officer sought to blame me for seeking to avoid paying fees as a justification for not doing what should have been done for my mother. The Nathan report is not substantiated in any of the written record, it is full of hearsay and misrepresentations made by third parties, which were discussed at Panel hearing. That was dealt with once and now I must deal with it again in order to make it absolutely clear that the assertions made in the LGO report are full of bias. What is the point of presenting evidence to the Ombudsman in the form of two archlever files of documents if they clearly have not read them, or have worse have deliberately ignored them. This document is at TAB41 14^th July 2008. It is confirmed, as a perverted justification for the actions taken by Adult Social Services in East Sussex, I agreed to pay fees. Here we see one side of the argument being made that it’s about the fact he wont pay fees and the same people saying – “well he agreed to pay the fees – so he should”.

8. The key is that none of the people at social services qualify what was said or recorded in the letters – namely that any agreement must be legal. The LGO report view is to accept tainted evidence as just and I cannot accept that. I’m going to kick against that because it is wholly wrong. There is no point at all in complaining to an organisation that simply takes one side’s case and ignores the other that has documentation to support it. That is an abuse of power. I do not live in North Korea. The LGO is accountable to MPs and if it isn’t accountable to them it is to the people and now the internet will not allow this abuse to be hidden by a Government funded organisation – especially when hospitals are closing wards.

9. The LGO report makes the conclusion the investigating officer makes, although unsupported by any documents. A conclusion that I refused to pay for my mothers healthcare and this was why my mother suffered – so by inference it was my fault!!! I wrote on page 25 of my response “I think it is important that we nail this allegation, because it has been used throughout this report to undermine my credibility, as my mother’s carer and is a gross slander. I am accused of not wanting to pay for my mothers healthcare, which is a depravation of assets and illegal. It is an unstated theme that runs through this report”. I then list chapter and verse as to why it is incorrect and flawed evidence and that was accepted. I totally repudiate the LGO claim that this document is reliable or in any way can be relied upon to produce a just response for my mother. If it were the appeal panel would have rejected my points and judgement would have been against me. The social services people sat quiet like mice, embarrassed by being caught with their fingers in the till at that meeting and the appropriate judgement made that supported turning a number of previously incorrect judgements around – including the agreement that coercion was used. I refer the LGO directly to page 11 of that judgment Item 6.(page8) I will not accept the LGO’s attempt to rewrite history in order to absolve those to blame for that coercion. We do not live in a world where judgements are handed down and the LGO have the ability to carry out their own ethnic cleansing of the documents to suit their own purposes. This whole approach is not only unjust it is a perversion of justice that damns the office.

10. The most damning thing about acceptance of the examining officers document is the fact that the author (Ms Nathan) deliberately withheld information from the panel hearing in her report. She visited me at the time we were homeless in my shed, waiting for my mothers home to complete, yet when I told her we were living in the shed in Crowhurst she said – “I’m sorry Mr Austin, I don’t want to know that “ and didn’t report it in the document. I thought that strange, but did not realise she had been commissioned to find fault and this one fact was not for public consumption, because it totally undermined the Council case for their claim for fees. The issue was about somewhere for our family to live. The fact that we were homeless has a material effect upon the judgement and yet a number of social workers who knew this did nothing to intervene or report it. They just reported that it was about “who’s pot it was” and because that wasn’t “their pot” they did what they were told by Mr Hinkleys office to do. The LGO report claiming we, as a family had not given up our home, shows that this information was withheld from the LGO and a deliberate deception. This isn’t justice and truth coming out, it is a cover up! I’m an embarrassment because my mother wasn’t demented and was treated like thousands of others on the gravy train to care funding for the Local Authority – and clearly from the “investigation“ the LGO don’t want to know or recognise the truth either. How is it possible for the LGO to conclude that (para)32 “Mr A had not given up his home to care for Mrs A” – when that was the intention and was in the very process of happening when my mother was hospitalised and her life taken from her by consigning her to the dementia ward. By the time Social Services were involved it was well under way. I am appalled by the injustice in this process of investigation, showing it unfit for purpose. The LGO haven’t investigated this matter properly, because if they had they would have known this. The LGO have rubber stamped policy – to charge those who are demented irrespective of the circumstances or suffering of the family.
    

11. In regards to complaints a (para 22): The council refused to participate in a Mental Health assessment of Mrs A which would have resulted in a compulsory admission for treatment and consequently an entitlement to free aftercare.
    
    

12. Paragraph 22 of the LGO report states “Mr A considers that as the nearest relative, once he had requested that his mother should be detained, then the authorities should have detained her” – No that is also not right and a total misrepresentation of the facts. My request for sectioning was because my mother had clearly lost her mind in the hospitalisation process and needed treatment and care in a psychiatric ward, where she could be monitored by psychiatric specialists. This is documented. It is exceedingly distressing to see the Ombudsman’s office make up words to suit the case of the social workers, who subsequently detained my mother without sectioning, resulting in her being denied the care she would have been entitled to. It was the social workers who made the assumption that they could decide whether my mother could be sectioned or not. I relied upon the documentary evidence and clearly the LGO haven’t read that otherwise they would not repeat false allegations. The LGO email to me dated the 10^th November confirmed that the LGO have read all the documentation provided. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that the LGO are deliberately misrepresenting my case. I made no statements to anyone that my mother should be detained. Sectioning is a process and that is the responsibility of doctors. That is clear and I do not wish to be misrepresented. Social workers see it as detention and have no understanding of the consequences of their failure to abide by the correct process. My mother suffered as a result of their belief that sectioning is detention. The sectioning process was supposed to be there to protect my mother and the LGO have failed my mother in this report by failing to understand the difference between my request for my mother to be sectioned, from the belief by social workers that I requested her to be detained. Neither I nor social workers are entitled to detain anyone. That right is reserved for suitably qualified doctors. Something that those social workers who detained my mother have not understood and consequently they broke the law.

13. In further response to paragraph 22 of the report I do not accept the proposal in the LGO summary that “put simply, the social worker did not think that those criteria were met in Mrs A’s case …. Because an application must be supported by the medical recommendation of two doctors”. My reason for disagreeing with the LGO report is that a procedure is laid down by law following the request for sectioning. In this case I made the request and two doctors were not instructed to conduct the sectioning process, either by the social workers or the hospital who received a similar request. In effect the social worker acted as a filter on the sectioning process, resulting in my mother not going through the sectioning process, thus the actions of social services denied my mother the rights associated with that process, a right that her mental state entitled her to. The summary suggests that making the application to the social worker implied no responsibility upon the social worker to enact the process requiring the doctors be summoned. I do not accept that principle, because the social workers had a duty of care whilst my mother was in their physical care. They failed in that duty. The responsibility I have as my mother’s attorney was to make the request, not to implement the actions myself because I am not a doctor and when my mother is in the personal control of the social worker in question it is within their control. Social services had taken control of my mother in hospital by instructing the ward sister not to release her to me. In consequence the failure to employ or instruct two doctors to carry out the process of what the law requires is in my view unlawful and maladministration, not to mention an abuse of my mother’s human rights. If the patient is in the control of social services, as in this case in a hospital, when a request for sectioning is made by the family it is not a lawful response to ignore the request from the family of the patient at the whim of the social worker. Similarly a hospital must have the same duty of care, which it too failed to honour.

14. In this case the patient had no capacity and is not able to order a doctor to carry out the sectioning process herself, especially as the patient in question was in the care of social services, but held by the hospital, who adopted the same position. I could not get the process implemented, since the only person able to make the request was denied it by the social worker and the hospital working together. It isn’t even as if as a result of making the application in writing on a number of occasions someone at the hospital would write to me or have a meeting and say to me “I’m sorry Nicholas but we cant do what you have requested” and a reason given. No, the way this matter was dealt with by both the hospital and social workers was to deliberately avoid the issue in correspondence and in person. The question that must be asked is why isn’t there any correspondence relating to this issue addressed to me, whereas there are multiple letters asking for sectioning to be implemented? When challenged on the matter the psychiatrist responsible for my mother told me to “see the legal people” – but refused to provide a name or address. This is not a proper response to making a sectioning application. It is not a proper response at all. It suggests to me that the psychiatrists have been told by the legal people not to put anything in writing – why? Making an application for sectioning to a doctor is a serious issue that can involve life or death or loss of mind, as in my mother’s case. I made my complaint to the Ombudsman because I expected to be given some answers. I expected action to be taken and not theoretical concerns. The LGO response is simply that they cannot find anything wrong with the current process that my mother went through. I wanted to know why my mother was dealt with in the way she was and this report answers nothing. It gives me a theoretical legal argument about what should not happen, but does not justify what did happen – it doesn’t provide justice for my mother to say that social services acted properly by ignoring the request for sectioning and did nothing. There is something seriously wrong here and the reason this report is being sent to all MPs and not just my own, because they put this process in place and need to recognise what they have done.

15. I would further state that I am exceeding critical of this decision concerning the rejection of this part of the complaint, because I believe it is seriously flawed. This is because the social worker rejected the sectioning process before the psychiatrist had been asked to section my mother. In consequence no medical professional had even considered the proposal put by myself that my mother needed sectioning. Why would they if it had not been requested. It is not normal to ask for a patient to be sectioned in a hospital ward by the children of a patient. The discharge process had already commenced at the time the meeting took place with the social worker, where the sectioning was requested, and at no time was any attempt made to implement the process of sectioning after that, because it was made after the discharge decision had been made.

16. This shows a fatal flaw in the LGO legalistic argument presented in the provisional judgement, because failure to fulfil the legal reasons cannot be the reason my mother was rejected for sectioning, because the psychiatrist was not involved in the decision The sectioning process puts in place a number of important and essential elements to protect the human rights of the individual concerned. The most important of those human rights is the right to freedom. My mother was subjected to a regime that removed the protections provided by the practice of sectioning – namely the presence of two doctors, one of whom is familiar with the patient’s medical and psychiatric history and also the family of the person who is the subject of the sectioning process.

17. Neither the social workers nor the hospital make any pretence that sectioning was carried out or even attempted. The defence to this claim the LGO report is proposing is that social workers have no legal duty of care to protect my mother’s mental health when she was in their care – I reject that. I have copies of all the medical and psychiatric notes for my mother (as do the LGO) and fail to understand how it can be can claimed that it is not important that the correct process takes place, when the end result can be detention indefinitely in a locked premises, as in the case of my mother, without the law being followed? That is why depravation of liberty safeguards where put in place and it is recognised than none were in place for my mother. Worse in my mothers case she may well have lost her capacity permanently, as a result of this failure in the system. It is my understanding that the Incapacity Act may not be used as an excuse by social workers or a hospital to avoid its obligation to section when called upon.

18. It is completely incorrect to assume that my complaint states that my mother was entitled to free aftercare from the sectioning process. If that were true I would not have written the final paragraph of my plea to social workers written on 3^rd October 2007 (Tab10) or the letter to Carly Driver at the hospital (Tab17) where the motive for application for sectioning is clear and not what is being put in the report. I wish that misrepresentation to be removed. The assumption follows from the sectioning process and is not an entitlement and has never been claimed as such by me. It was the view of the social workers I met in hospital and not mine. They equated sectioning with free care, I did not. The paperwork supports the view that my request for sectioning was to entitle my mother to be treated in a hospital and receive care in which she could be assessed and receive appropriate treatment. My complaint is that she did not receive this and suffered as a result. It is my claim, which has not been dealt with, that the motive for denying sectioning was to deny my mother aftercare costs irrespective of her mental condition and the social workers intervened in the healthcare process to ensure the Council did not have to meet those costs. This is why my mother’s case for Continuing Healthcare Funding was rejected by the Health Authority who failed her, resulting in the Health Ombudsman finding maladministration in my mother’s favour. A process with similar mind sets by the individuals concerned, who just assumed my mother wasn’t entitled to it and so failed to take her case seriously, or follow procedures because she was just another demented patient. There was maladministration there and there is here.

19. Lastly in respect of the sectioning issue the legalistic argument presented would mean that under the proposal outlined in the LGO report there is never an obligation upon social workers to implement the process of sectioning. I know, as those who wrote this report do, that sectioning is not a socially acceptable process and is extremely stressful for families to deal with. Yet if my mother punched her carers social services could implement sectioning within an instance and the legalistic argument that has been presented in the LGO report immediately falls away.

20. The process of sectioning is carried out by doctors, but in this case social workers were acting as filters – that is the complaint – they effectively stopped the process and the hospital were party to the arrangement. The third sentence in this paragraph confirms the process. The LGO report says “The social workers considered that formal admission (sectioning) was not appropriate in this case”. That was maladministration because the social worker do not have the right to make a decision that doctors should make. The failure to address the issues relevant to my mother’s case, and dealing in generalist legal arguments shows the LGO have not dealt with my mother’s specific case and the judgement is flawed, because it shows an injustice that should not have happened. Someone is responsible for what happened to my mother and we now know is it wasn’t the doctors and it wasn’t the social workers according to both the Ombudsmen involved in this case. That is not a just decision, because someone decided not to act to protect my mother. I did all I could and the system that is in place rejected my efforts. I primarily apportion blame with social workers acting as doctors, as a means of avoiding funding costs.

21. It is however much worse than this, because in East Sussex if a person applies for sectioning using the recognised process laid down by law the Local Authority will actively refuse sectioning (Tab88-89) 20^th January 2010, regardless of the evidence that doctors may have. I checked the sectioning process even before the first request and understand that two doctors are required. I asked my mother’s doctor to attend her and he agreed that she was incapacitated as required under the Mental Health Act. The correspondence in my bundle confirms this and the LGO is ignoring this evidence. If a doctor agrees that someone is suitable to be sectioned, and that person is your personal physician, who then instructs the local psychiatric unit to attend, then the sectioning process has started. The Local Authority cannot then reject that application lawfully by arguing that the psychiatric unit under their pay won’t bother to go and see them, because the Local Authority wont pay for the care – that is what happened to my mother and the LGO haven’t dealt with that. It is disingenuous to argue that the process requires two doctors, whilst at the same time a system is in place that ensures two doctors cannot attend, even when requested by the family doctor. I have to ask what country am I living in where a family doctor asks the psychiatric service to attend my mother to be sectioned in her own good, but that request is rejected by the Local Authority? The request wasn’t rejected by the psychiatrist and if the LGO had investigated this they would confirm that something is seriously wrong if impartial. That process isn’t right and surely the LGO cannot be claiming it is – yet this is the effect of the judgement. A judgement that must be seriously prejudicial to the rights of the mentally ill.

22. Complaint b: Social workers coerced Mr and Mrs into accepting residential care

23. I shall come back to paragraph 23 of the LGO report after first dealing with the title of the complaint and the subsequent pargraphs 24 to 28 under the same heading. Given the admittance by Dr Millen, the representative of East Sussex Adult Social Services, that Social Services accepted that they had sought to use coercion at the Appeal Panel hearing it is perverse that the Ombudsman rejects the written and verbal evidence provided by its own complaints process.

24. The statement under Complaint b is another misrepresentation of my complaint made against social services and the Local Authority. If the LGO are going to present formal written summaries of the complaint please get the exact wording correct and do not misrepresent me. I was not coerced into accepting residential care. I was coerced into signing an agreement that would unlawfully take away my mother’s property and stop her from being able to enter the mental health process. The effect of signing that agreement would be to confirm my consent to her entering residential care – a completely different issue.
    

25. The exact complaint is that a social worker instructed the hospital staff to detain my mother in a hospital ward, until such time as they would instruct the nursing staff to release her, having previously agreed with the hospital doctors that there was no need for my mother to remain in hospital. These instructions were unlawful and given with the intention of forcing the family to sign a care home agreement, before releasing my mother. The period of this detention was between 2^nd November 2007 and 15^th November 2007. The object of that detention was to force me to sign a legally binding agreement with the care home, for my mother to be responsible for payment of her fees, when there was no evidence that she was required to pay those fees and still is no evidence to confirm she is due to pay any fees. I have to ask how is it possible to present detailed documentation (Tabs18-25) with many other documents running through events of that time for the LGO to misrepresent my case in such a terrible and prejudiced manner? I am amazed that the LGO have presented this document to me for approval – I cannot accept it and reject it for the reasons stated.

26. For the benefit of clarity the key document that confirms this abuse of my mother is available here for public scrutiny:

27. http://www.landscapehd.com/ombudsmen/om005.jpg (Tab7 page 81)
    
    

28. This is one of a number of documents included in the bundle of documents sent over to both the LGO and the PHSO. Not only are they a record of the abuse as it happened, but the hospital ward notes confirm the deception employed by social service. Mr Hinkley, the Head of Adult Social Services was advised of the abuse a number of times (as documented earlier) and did nothing. He did not write to me at the time, call me or even acknowledge the drama that they had implemented. The LGO report say this is a normal process and allowed under the rules and there was no maladministration, because nothing was done incorrectly – this is not in my view acceptable or proper behaviour for a public service. Clearly if the rules are implemented in such a manner as the Ombudsman’s office agrees that this process is perfectly acceptable, then there can be little use for such an organisation. I can have no faith in the ability of the Ombudsmans office to investigate when having been sent copies of the source documents, along with supporting documentation, together with documents that admit coercion from the person responsible for that organisation at Appeal, there is no judgement in my favour. Either the LGO have not read these documents or they are in collusion to avoid social services taking responsibility for their actions, or the process is flawed and that must be changed. The use of coercion to obtain a financial gain is unlawful, whether it is by the person or the State. I demand to know how a government ombudsman can defend the indefensible. I want this explained to the MPs and law lords who set up the processes and in particular the Incapacity Act, which it appears to me is being used as a means to circumvent the protections of the Mental Health Act? If the LGO is unable to answer to me they should be able to answer them.
    

29. I was under the impression that the Ombudsman’s office was there to rectify complaints made by members of the public. What I appear to see is a flawed complaints system set up to justify its own existence, by endorsing what ever social workers or councils may do, even when they have their own evidence of maladministration, produced by their own arduous complaints system. A just decision would be one that admitted the mistake had taken place. The fact appears to be that it was not a mistake and that makes the Ombudsman’s position untenable for siding with Social Services.
    

30. Complaint Clause 24. The LGO report says the LGO does not accept my version of events, despite notes in the documents that I sent them that show the social worker in question instructed the hospital to detain my mother and correspondence with the management confirming events as they happened (letter to Keith Hinkley dated 2^nd November 2007 when the major abuse started). It has never been denied these things happened. What further evidence could be required? Coercion is forcing someone to do something they would not freely do and that was not denied at the Appeal Panel hearing. It is wholly wrong of the LGO to reject the Appeal Panel judgement as a means of justifying an unlawful process. This is an abuse of process and I shall ask my MP to do what ever is necessary to obtain justice for my mother.
    

31. I find it truly remarkable that it is stated respite care was offered and rejected. This is misleading to anyone reading this report and misinformation. The correspondence I sent the LGO shows conclusively that it was not offered after my mother had been permanently admitted to hospital and that was what I requested in writing – did the Ombudsman read my submission (letter dated 30^th October 2007 to Carly Driver Conquest Hospital)? Why on earth would I have written that letter if that statement in the LGO report was correct – it is not. It is flawed misinformation? The LGO is selectively quoting the Local Authority response, without reference to documents written by me at the time. The LGO cannot justifiably make the assertion that respite care was rejected, when it is shown in writing to be requested on a number of occasions. The reference the LGO have highlighted is to a meeting held on the morning after my mother had entered hospital, but was still not admitted, when the Rapid Response team suggested sending my mother to a care home when she in fact had a broken pubic bone requiring five weeks in hospital to recover. How can the LGO justify this response in an official report, as the correct way to deal with patients who need five weeks in hospital to recover? Perhaps it is the LGO’s view that anyone with a broken pubic bone who just happens to be old shouldn’t be admitted to hospital and they should just be shunted off to a care home? That is what this report looks like it is telling me if I am to understand the inference that I should have accepted such a clearly wrong decision. The fact the LGO have not even identified this as the wrong way to treat a hospital admission is very telling. The LGO have in this paragraph quoted clearly misleading and prejudicial matters designed to give the view that I was responsible because I rejected respite care. That statement is unjust misinformation seeking to undermine my credibility in protecting my mother’s interests and can now be seen for what it is.
    

32. Irrespective of these issues raised in the previous paragraph, and I have responded to, para 24 of the LGO report has no relevance to complaint listed as b) and should be deleted from the report. It relates to when my mother was admitted to the hospital ten weeks prior to the detention and is not an issue of the complaint so do not understand why it is there other than to pad out a report and detract attention from the main issue – why my mother was not detained and not sectioned according to the provisions of the Mental Health Act.
    

33. Para 25 is correct in stating that at the beginning of October 2007 “The records indicate that Mrs A was medically fit for discharge”. No attempt is made to explain why despite being medically fit for discharge no discharge took place even when notice was served upon the Chief Executive (9th November 2007 Keith Hinkley) confirming the illegal detention. The statement in para 25 doesn’t reconcile with the evidence in that letter, which shows discharge is not possible due to my mothers detention in the ward. The complaint is about what happened in November not October.
    

34. Para 26 is incorrect since a best interests meeting must consider Mrs Austins best interests and not simply be the subject of a meeting. In order for a Best Interests meeting to take place it is necessary for such a meeting to take place in an environment where the interests of my mother can be considered. Where reference is given to what my mother would like and also what she would want to be done in the circumstances that she found herself in. I have seen no evidence to support the idea that my mother’s views or her family were even considered at any time. My mother had taken the decision to sell her home in April 2007 and by the time the meeting was taken a buyer had been found and a new home was being purchased for her. None of this was discussed and the only subject of discussion was how to discharge my mother into a care home at her own expense. It was not even known at that time what sort of home should accommodate my mother. The subject of discharge is not a Best Interests meeting, since a meeting of that sort requires the people present to take into account the decision making process that my mother would have made herself, if she were able. It was not therefore a proper Best Interests meeting as required to determine what was best for my mother from a mental health perspective. No evidence has been presented to me to suggest that it was. What the LGO should be stating in its report is that a meeting was called at which I attended to decide where my mother should go. I do not deny that this was held, but it was not in my mother best interests as defined by the practice that is to be expected for mental health assessment. It was with the benefit of hindsight a very bad decision, taken by social services, because as a result of the actions taken by social workers at that meeting my mother was placed in a home with inadequate falls protection, despite a history of falls. Some might say a negligent decision on behalf of the social workers who took the decision.

35. Paragraph 26 denies the use of coercion yet none is claimed took place at this time. The coercion took place in November 2007 as agreed with the Appeal Panel. Why would the LGO be looking for coercion when it isn’t claimed to have taken place at that time. This shows me and anyone else reading this report that the LGO have not understood the complaint nor conducted a proper investigation.

36. The statement at the end of paragraph 26 shows the LGO no longer holds the right to investigate this case. I hope those who read this understand what is being said. The LGO report states “Whilst Mr Austin may view the Council’s role and procedures in this process as coercive, I cannot conclude that there is evidence of maladministration.

37. What this statement tells us is that the Ombudsman is ruling that social workers may force the families of those who have dementia to sign care home agreements, even when there is no evidence that requires them to pay. A wholly untenable practice which the LGO appear to be taking as a last resort to justify coercion in what ever form it may take. The LGO appear to have forgotten that should I fail to do what is lawful for any reason the Local Authority have the right, as is the right of all citizens, to seek redress through the courts – something the Council only did one year after the coercion failed. In that instance issuing a County Court summons for approximately £400 with a view to setting a legal precedent, when in fact £20,000 was then claimed (incorrectly as was later determined) when the matter sat before the judge. This is not a proper process of how social services are supposed to work. The LGO endorsement of the use of coercion in these circumstances is a disgrace to the service and a Government department in my opinion. It shows a rotten apple is in the pot and needs removing, before the whole pot is contaminated.

38. Para 27 The LGO statement is incorrect in the statement that I “agreed to an EMI placement, but afterwards had second thoughts”. The evidence in the bundle I sent to the LGO shows clearly that I agreed to the placement, but not upon the basis that my mother paid whilst an agreement existed for the NHS to pay for her care – there was no change of decision – please show me where this allegation is recorded?

39. Para 27 concludes that no depravation of liberty took place according to the evidence the LGO have seen. The LGO concludes this upon the basis that the ward was not locked, despite my mother being in the total control of the hospital staff and not physically transportable out of the ward without the assistance of the hospital. A person who cannot walk on their own does not require locks on the door to be detained and this is obvious to even the most gullible. The LGO make this judgement in the report despite written evidence of coercion being applied and accepted by Dr Millen on behalf of Social Services. A depravation of liberty event does not need physical locks, despite the fact that the ward in which my mother was staying was not an open ward and does have locks. The conclusion is wrong and unjust and a court will need to rule upon this if the LGO cannot. This report offers opinions upon issues which it cannot rule and in so doing undermines the authority with which it is supposed to act – in the interests of fairness and justice. If the LGO cannot rule on an issue then it is beholden upon them to refrain from seeking to express unjust opinions. Making judgements and statements that are false, as in this case, is damaging to the claimant and seen as an unjustifiable attempt to support an unsupportable case.

40. This paragraph along with paragraph 28 deals with depravation of liberty and is irrelevant to the issue of coercion because this is dealt with in complaint section d – which acknowledges that the Ombudsman cannot rule on such matters. It is important that the LGO agrees this complaint arose at a time no depravation of liberty protections were in place. It is my case in my complaint that my mother was detained unlawfully and it is not denied by the hospital that they enforced the detention requested by the social worker. This is further supported by the nursing notes (1^st November – 15^th November 2007) which state a specific order being sent to the ward by Brenda Pegman, the social worker “Telephone call from Brenda Pegman. Alice not to be discharged or moved from ward until gives the OK”. My position was clear that I could not forcibly remove my mother without committing an unlawful act myself because my mother was in the control of Social Services in an environment where she was monitored and controlled 24 hours a day in the hospital. The fact that instructions were issued by social workers to the hospital confirmed the detention was effective. The locks on the door were a secondary issue that to all intents and purpose had no material effect upon the detention, because I could not remove my mother when I wanted.

41. If the Ombudman cannot rule on such matters it is creating fodder to the document providing ancillary information that is irrelevant to the judgement along the same lines as the statements in the previous paragraphs. To suggest that I should go through the complaints procedure again having made the complaint once three years ago is highly disingenuous, unhelpful and shows complete disrespect for the those raising the complaint and those who have taken the complaint to this level.

42. Complaint c: The council failed to apply charging rules fairly or reasonably such that his mother was required to pay her care in full. The decision to charge Mrs A for residential care was unlawful and the decision to seek recovery of monies in the county court unreasonable.

43. The LGO report has not dealt with the core issue of the date that a patient is required to pay for their own healthcare. No date is given in the document issued by the LGO but is the key fact no.40 above (8^th December 2008). Paragraph 29 confirms that the Ombudsman has taken the report by the external investigator as being the basis for agreeing that charging was due.

44. This report can only be read in conjunction with the Review Panel repudiation of that report, which is covered in Report Paragraph 2 above. The conclusions drawn from the use of the flawed report produce and unjust decision.

45. It is understood that those who are self funding must pay for their accommodation – this is not denied. It is a continuing theme through Ms Nathan’s report and that of the Ombudsman that seeks to make the case that somehow Mr Austin is seeking to avoid payment. As reported in the document declared to the Review Panel this is incorrect and at times approaching a slanderous attack upon the credibility of myself, as my mother’s primary carer. The correspondence in the bundle, which will go to trial if this matter is not resolved, makes it absolutely clear that no depravation or avoidance is, or has been under-taken, at any time. The issue is whether the law is being applied as written. It is my contention that it is being applied selectively in the interests of financial expediency and this produces an injustice for me, my family and mother. A case that is not being addressed by the Ombudsman’s report.

46. It is my contention that no date of liability has been addressed in the Ombudsman’s report and therefore this produces a major injustice, because financial liability does not fall upon a patient upon entering hospital. It is not right or I believe lawful for social workers to decide that my mother is responsible for her care costs, when it has been agreed that those care costs will be paid for by the NHS until the time that her Continuing Care Cost appeal was adjudicated. This was because that was the agreement that social workers organised as a written agreement with the NHS. A deal brokered by those same social workers who made those financial arrangements, but later reneged upon those arrangements and issuing proceedings in court to try to force us to sign a funding agreement.

47. The Local Authority in this case took over the responsibility to pay the care home on 8^th December 2008 because the NHS agreed to do that. The NHS have a duty to continue to pay my mothers costs until a proper assessment is done – as witnessed by the correspondence with the NHS and social workers who simply ignored what I told them in the copious documents supplied, which the Ombudsman has seen.

48. It is an unjust judgement that supports the actions taken by social workers irrespective of the evidence. It does not take into account the date that the NHS is due to cease funding my mother. It cannot be the responsibility of the Local Authority to fund my mothers care when her legal representative has not asked them to fund it, when the person in question is supposed to be self funding, and costs have been agreed to be paid by the NHS. It is not logical or right to firstly make the payments on behalf of someone who has not agreed it and then to sue them to force them pay what they are not due to pay. The people who should be sued are the NHS Trust who have failed to honour a written agreement to pay those costs. The fact that the LGO seeks to justify the position adopted by Adult Social Services demonstrates a complete disregard for the normal practices of commerce and how the law operates. It is as if it is accepted that social services operate above the law and the LGO agrees that this is the way it should be. I cannot agree with this determination of a just social structure.

49. It is not denied that if my mother had received a proper assessment that she should pay her care costs, provided they conformed to the legislation. That legislation cannot be applied retrospectively and it is a bad judgement that seeks to do that in order to somehow punish my mother and her family for not agreeing to pay for her hospitalisation in 2007.

50. It is acknowledged in paragraph 30 that an assessor visited my home in October 2007 and it is highly material to the judgement that the assessment in question was made by the financial officer of the council at that date. This financial assessment was not requested by my mother or me but imposed upon us by the social worker. This is because as matters turned out the financial assessment that was made was not needed, because payment of my mother’s care was agreed with the NHS, without the concept of social care coming into existence until December 2008. A letter to Tracey Whatley on 20^th November 2007 (Financial officer Social Services tab28) confirmed a new financial assessment would be required when my mother was released from the care of the NHS, if at all. No new assessment has ever been completed despite major changes in my mother’s financial position. Despite this correspondence and the date of liability being the end of 2008 at the earliest possible time the LGO report fails to find that it was wrong for the Local Authority to raise charges against my mother’s account based upon an assessment over a year before she entered the care of social services – effectively backdating the point of liability because it was known my mothers circumstances changed as a result of purchasing a different property.

51. It is therefore an unjust ruling that has been made in regards to my mother because no proper financial assessment took place in the year prior to the point where any liability to the Council, if any, fell due. No attempt was made to conduct a proper new financial assessment. Social Services simply took a view, firstly that my mother was from Essex, so they weren’t going to pay, then when that didn’t work they decided they would rely upon out of date information that they knew was wrong. That cannot be right and is not dealt with by the Ombudsman – a major omission that prejudices my mother’s rights to have a proper financial assessment at the time she would be due to pay the council if indeed that were the case. It cannot be right to assess someone upon old information and draw conclusions from financial information that is not correct or up to date.

52. As a result of assessing my mothers financial situation before the completion of the sale of her home went through, and the purchase of her new home where she was due to live with me, the LGO judgement produces a massive injustice for me and my family. If implemented it would run contrary to the provisions of the Incapacity Act which state an attorney must act in the best interests of the person he is representing and must act as they would.
    

53. We had given up our home in Crowhurst in council housing stock in order that we would look after my mother. It is extremely galling to see in the LGO report it state “Mr A had not given up his home to care for Mrs A” when at the time of her hospitalisation my mother was living with me and I was her sole carer. I was living in the shed that Ms Nathan visited where I work until the new property came through, because our flat in Crowhurst had been given up and I was instructed as her attorney to carry out her wishes. It shows that the evidence that the LGO have looked at is partial, prejudiced and untruthful. I read into this that Social Services are seeking to punish our family for complaining to the Ombudsman when they thought we should not be difficult. How can this observation be part of a government office report when it is not true and known by the officers concerned not to be true?

54. Paragraph 32 deals appears to condemn the position we found ourselves in because we did not inform the financial officer who made the assessment over a year before it was due, whether my mother’s stay in hospital was temporary or permanent. This is a wholly illogical position to adopt because at that time it was not known how long my mother would be in hospital and it was being argued by her family in writing that she should be in a mental hospital – so what relevance is this? My mother did not spend any time in the council care from that moment to this – so what is this nonsense all about in regards to what was told to the financial assessor. The fact is she was told that a new property was being bought and that was recorded. That was why loan funding was agreed, subject to the provision that it was legal. I now believe the attempt to force the family to sign a funding agreement was not legal. No funds were due and this was an opportunist attempt by the Local Authority to relinquish financial responsibility prior to the point where they would need to pay for my mother’s care, at the point of NHS discharge.

55. It is understood exactly what rights the Council have to recover funds, however those rights only apply if lawful and that has always been the case I have presented in the documentation and in person. It also has to be recognised that it is wrong for social workers to make demands for payment and to seek to make carers sign agreements for payment of care home fees when they are not yet due, or indeed may never be due. The social workers concerned in this case cannot possibly know what the outcome of the appeal for continuing care with the NHS will be or when. They could not possibly know the medical diagnosis for my mother and whether the challenge to that medical diagnosis is correct or not.

56. Up to the point the LGO report was delivered to me no new continuing care assessment has been made and the liability to pay any costs prior to that point is open to legal interpretation. At the time the Council took over the responsibility to pay for care for my mother from the NHS, without my consent as her attorney, my family and I were living in the home of my mother as she had planned. It is my contention that it is not right or lawful for the Local Authority to seek to implement rules that are one sided and only in their favour when the effect of applying those rules in this selective and irresponsible manner is to make our family homeless, when those rules specifically protect the close family of carers. It is recognised that I am over 60 years old now and believe those rules are there to protect me and my family from eviction and the loss of the family home, which my mother was entitled to move into. The whole point of going to the Ombudsman was to get this recognised and to obtain justice for my mother. The fact that she fell outside her home and lost her mind in a hospital in East Sussex does not entitle East Sussex County Council to backdate their point of liability in order to justify depriving her of her assets. It is clear to me that a system exists to deprive the families of the demented of their assets, assets which my mother is entitled to retain and my family are entitled to live in according to the law and also the rules of CRAG. The LGO report has used out of date information, the biased and unreliable Ruth Nathan report, and a failure to recognise the correct date of liability as a means of implementing a bad and unjust judgement that needs to be reversed.

57. Complaint d: The Council detained Mrs A in hospital and subsequently in a care home without legal consent and failed to follow the procedures set out in the Depravation of Liberty Safeguards.

58. Para 34. It is noted that the LGO report confirms the social worker instructed the hospital ward in November 2007 at the time of the forced detention by social workers that staff were not to discharge my mother until the social worker gave permission. This is the official written confirmation of the detention at the time my mother was being used to force me to sign a care home funding agreement against my will.

59. It is also noted that the LGO cannot comment upon depravation of liberty judgements because the case for each is different. It is clear to me that this matter can now only be resolved by a court. The LGO have seen the evidence, recorded it, but failed to recognise anyone at fault.

I have responded to the LGO report as best I can. However the judgement the LGO has made is neither fair nor just, because despite having sent all the necessary correspondence to entitle that office to come to a just conclusion, the LGO has not done that. I have given the reasons and looking at this from the perspective of the complainant I see a system in place that is not designed to protect the public or my mother.

CONCLUSION

My mother had a fall outside in the street, wasn’t treated in hospital because she looked like she was an escaped dementia patient from an old people’s home, was handed over to social services, and abused by the process of ageist neglect. Social workers assumed she was demented and sought to blackmail me to sign an agreement to deprive her of her assets and turn back the arrangements she had made to finish her life with her son in St Leonards, by detaining her in hospital until the family signed a care home agreement that would rob her of the family home and her assets. A request was made to section my mother to protect her but social services rejected the sectioning process acting as filters within the hospital, making it impossible to obtain healthcare for my mother.

The family went through the complaints process and were told that because my mother was detained in a hospital by social services they would need to complain to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman for the health elements and the Local Government Ombudsman in regards to the issues with Social Services.

Both Ombudsman services have now reported and both tell me that what happened to my mother was not because the NHS or social services did anything wrong. If there was any fault it must have been with someone else – pointing the finger at the other side at the Appeal Panel hearings (see Complaint 6).

In order to justify its position this LGO judgement blames no-one and accepts that it is quite OK within what is allowed for social workers to use coercion to force family members to sign agreements for the care of their relatives, even when no money is actually due at that time. This is a decision that runs contrary to all the rules of common justice.

Let us now expand the issue specifically, because at the same time I received the report from the LGO I contacted the NHS to ask them why, having agreed that maladministration had been involved in denying my mother a fair application for Continuing Healthcare funding in 2007, nothing had been done five months after being notified of the decision (2010)? I received an apology, something Social Services have never done. I also received agreement to pay my mothers care costs from December 2008 until the end of a new assessment, as had been agreed in writing in2008.

The effect of this decision is to confirm that officers of Social Services sought to use their position to unlawfully force the family, of what they thought was a demented person, to sign away their home and assets unlawfully. No funding is or was ever due to the Local Authority from 2007 even until the day I write this. Despite this being known and documented the people concerned in Adult Social Services believed they had the authority of their department head to force contractual closure and thus remove the financial liability, because my mother appeared to be a dementia patient. It confirms to my mind corrupt practices in Local Government in East Sussex and because neither the LGO nor the PHSO see anything wrong in this, as confirmed by their reports, I expect someone to do something.

I originally asked for a joint investigation using both the PHSO and LGO, because the complaint shows that officers of social services are operating in hospitals with the view of directing mental health patients into care homes, in order to avoid costs for the NHS and Local Authority. I claimed a glass ceiling had been put in place, whereby the NHS was working with the local Authority to ensure those who were deemed demented never had the ability to call upon the protections of the Mental Health Act. However neither the PHSO or the LGO want to investigate this matter and now it is clear to me why. If that were to happen the doctors could not blame the social workers and vice verse. Indeed it would not be in either organisation’s interests to have anyone outside their own organisations being involved in any external investigation.

In the process of implementing the glass ceiling Social Services are repatriating assets of the mentally ill, as in the case of my mother, which they are not entitled to – under the pretext of social laws – but actually misquoting laws designed for those who were not already in care. They did this with my mother, believing she was a demented person, and getting well and truly caught out because she was not. They failed to understand why I would not recognise that we should not be forced to do what they wanted, because this is how they treat all the families of the demented. It is forced repatriation of assets, irrespective of rights – now underwritten by some smart lawyers interpretation of what the Incapacity Act has been interpreted as “best interests”.

I see the LGO report, like the ones I suffered at the Panel hearings, to be the end of an abusive process that does not produce judgements in favour of the complainant, that are neither fair nor just. My mother’s best interests were never served. Bias is rampant and apparently endemic in the judgments given to others, as well as the one planned to be given to me.

I seek justice for my mother and I am going to see my MP (Amber Rudd – Hastings and St Leonards) to ask that this matter be investigated properly, because the complaint still stands and has not been dealt with. That complaint was that social services are positioning themselves in hospitals as filters to direct patients they consider demented into care homes. Social workers can now deny a mentally ill patient the right to sectioning and protection in a hospital environment, as confirmed in my mother’s case. My mother was not demented when she entered hospital and that abuse would never have come to light if she had been. This judgement shows that my mother could not enter the mental health system, because social services, in conjunction with NHS administrators, have put a glass ceiling in place that does not allow people such as my mother the ability to be sectioned (under the guise of the protections meant to be put in place by the Incapacity Act). Even when the family doctor agrees to participate in the sectioning process lawyers are given as the excuse for the action not being followed through. This is an abuse of the law, which was put in place by MPs. It cannot be right for the Local Authority to seek to use the newly created Incapacity Act to lock my mother up in a care home without any legal redress, because she fell outside her home. It cannot have been the intention of the Law Lords and MPs to have set up a system that would allow financial abuse in the name of expediency, allowing Social Services to act as policemen in the diagnosis of who is demented. It cannot of have been the intention of law makers to give social workers the right to lock up my mother without trial or appeal. Social Services acted as a filter inside the hospital. If those filters were not there my mother would have been protected by the sectioning process.

Those who sought to stop that sectioning process have managed to do this using a process the Ombudsmen (LGO and PHSO) have adjudicated is not caused by maladministration– giving the green light to the practice of holding onto patients in hospital until the family sign care contracts, even when they are not due to. They have both ruled that there is no obligation to section the demented, irrespective of their circumstances or ability of an attorney to act for them – this cannot be right.

I think this shows that the investigators need to be investigated. In order for justice to be done I can see that the whole process I have been subjected to has been a complete waste of my time and public money. At the end of the day this process has found no fault with anyone and yet clearly those who read the documentation will see a number of major faults. The most important of these being when someone old falls outside their flat and gets taken to hospital they do not get taken into a system that they cannot escape from, even when their representatives intervene. Loss of mind is bad enough, to then lose your home in which your family live is I believe criminal activity when the objective is solely funding related. It has nothing to do with the best interests of the patient.

Unfortunately this is a complicated case and that is why there are many documents to read. The simplistic approach to the report has not brought justice to me or my mother. The conclusion I must reach is the LGO organisation is not able to do that. I must therefore rely upon a judge to bring justice to my mother. As a result of the Local Authority suing my mother and me in 2008 for the care home funds that I was not due to pay I filed a counter-claim in court on my mother’s behalf for her illegal detention by social services. I was not prepared to represent my mother in court because we could not afford representation, so it was agreed that the local Authority would send the paperwork to the Official Solicitor to represent her and I would then be free to be called to give evidence. I have subsequently learnt that the local Authority have not sent the paperwork to the Official Solicitor. Perhaps they think my mother will die soon and I will drop her case. I think they have made a serious mistake and this case is one of immense importance to those who are the children and carers of demented parents. My mother should have her day in court. Even if she cannot speak I will speak for her and now the matter rests with officialdom to sort that matter out.

In coming to terms with these two reports I have concentrated solely upon the LGO report in this document. I can see that there is a blatant attempt to stitch this case closed. I have done this to highlight the clear injustice of the report, since there can be no justification for what is written and has been presented to me for approval. Indeed the report is so one sided and distorted in its application of decision making I decided to check the record of the Ombudsman services. The following is the public record information taken from Wikipedia:

Two-thirds of users of the service express dissatisfaction. Complainants dissatisfied with the Local Government Ombudsman claim that the service is biased in favour of councils, deliberately covers up council maladministration, disregards its own published guidance on good administrative practice, condones council malpractice, conceals documented evidence of maladministration and willfully misrepresents facts in order to favour councils.

A representative of the Local Government Association sits on the selection panel of the Local Government Ombudsman and each of the present Ombudsmen was serving as a local authority chief executive at the time of their appointment, inevitably compromising their impartiality. The LGO does not reveal the proportion of staff recruited from local government.

A 1995 report by Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield recommended abolition of the Local Government Ombudsman on the grounds that it would not be able to handle the increasing volume of local government complaints effectively. Chipperfield recommended that all stages of a complaint, including external review, should be carried out locally. The government took no action, stating: "We recognise the importance of all local authorities having their own effective local complaints systems, although we are not persuaded of the need to seek legislation imposing a new statutory duty on local authorities to establish and maintain such systems. Nor do we believe that the case has been made that there is at present no continued need for the CLA's role as a wholly independent body to investigate complaints of maladministration.".

Only 1.71% of cases in 2004/5 resulted in a published report and a finding of maladministration. A further 25.29% of cases ended by 'local settlement' agreed between the council and the Local Government Ombudsman. This is an offer of redress by the council that the Ombudsman (not the complainant) deems satisfactory. Local settlements do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Councils are under no legal obligation to fulfill local settlements or act on the Local Government Ombudsman's recommendations, even those in a published report, though the Ombudsman claims that only one percent of settlements and recommendations are not complied with in full.

Appointments to posts within the CLAE are not subject to the regulation and monitoring functions of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. A later government recognised the problem of unaccountability in this selection process and in 2007 proposed a small step towards improving the situation^. Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated in a debate on constitutional reform; "The House of Commons should also have a bigger role in the selection of key public officials. I propose, as a first step, pre-appointment hearings for public officials whose role it is to protect the public's rights and interests, and for whom there is not currently independent scrutiny. That includes the ... local government ombudsman ..."

One risk of taking a complaint to the Local Government Omdudsman is that the complainant may run out of time to seek judicial review of a council's decision, missing the opportunity to raise the original matter in court. Judicial review must be sought within three months in the UK whereas only 54% of 2004/5 Ombudsman cases were determined within this time. There are no known cases in which a Local Government Ombudsman reversed a decision after judicial review.

In checking the record I also find that there is now an organisation set up with the sole intention of closing the LGO. That organisation is found at http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/. It reports that the LGO report over 20 times less maladministration than they did a few years ago and that the LGO have the worst customer satisfaction rating of all Public Service Ombudsmen. It is clear to me and probably those who read this report why.

Having been through the experience I have with this process I can see why I must add my voice in support of their objectives, since it seems the evidence of what happened to me and my mother supports their actions. I cannot find one redeeming factor in the report presented to my by the LGO and see it as a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice, by taking on the job of a court without a jury. The LGO report is packed with misrepresentations and even repeats lies. Every person touched by this process of seeking justice is scarred emotionally and I for one will not simply let this rest, because justice is not about accepting coercion and letting the matter drop.

The question that must remain is what is the point of there being an Ombudsman’s Office if it is just there to rubber stamp the actions of social workers what ever they do? Where no-one is ever held personally to account for their errors? What is the point of an organisation that never questions the professional opinions of the staff it is supposed to be investigating and simply repeats what they tell them without the due diligence of cross-examination? Where the head of Adult Social Services, who was responsible for the trauma caused by my mother’s detention, walks away with a pension into another Local Authority job? What is the point of an organisation that doesn’t read any documents except those written to the complainant and there is a system to avoid that? What is the point of an organisation that cannot bring justice in this particular case? I can see no reason for such an organisation to exist. My view at the end of this experience is that those who put you in your position of power should investigate this case in both jurisdictions (Health Service and Adult Social Care in hospitals), through an independent assessment or better still just close them down upon the weight of evidence. I cannot believe that the MPs who put these Ombudsmen in their position of power truly understand what it is the Ombudsmen do. I think they need to know and the reason for circulating this report in public. If justice can only be obtained from a court I cannot see why these services are needed when a perfectly adequate and time honoured system exists in the courts to obtain proper justice. The paperwork given out by the Health Service and the Local Authority guiding people into this abusive system is wholly misleading. If it told you at the start that 1.71% of reports were published and acted upon no-one in the right mind would chose that route.

My best friend has seen what happened to me as a result of what happened to my mother. It started with the drip drip of being told what to do, by people who had no authority over us. When we rejected their authority they turned off the lights, refused to help us, turned the tap full on and started to drown us in misinformation and lies designed to firstly trick us into submission, then they held my mother against our will to force an agreement. At the end we nearly drowned in the deceit of corrupt reporting designed to defend the indefensible. My friend said my family and I have been subjected to “emotional waterboarding” and I know exactly what he means. It appears that I am not the only one being subjected to this abuse. There can be no excuse for this. Any system that defends the indefensible should be dismantled.

Yours faithfully

Nick Austin

CHAIRMAN

www.landscapehd.com

tel: 01424 830628

Contact: aliceaustin@landscapetv.com

Business address

Landscape Studios

Royal Oak Lane

Crowhurst

East Sussex

TN33 9BY

Mrs Austin is available to be seen by those interested in this case at any time between 11am and 5pm seven days a week at her home. No appointment is necessary.

East Sussex: St Dominics Nursing Home

71 Filsham

TN38 OPA

[Back to the top]

Copyright © 2009 ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk      Designed and built by Trevor R Nunn