Recently on SNJ's Facebook page, someone accused us of being too hard
on local authorities who were 'trying their best'. Actually, I know
first hand that many, many people working in LAs really are working
diligently and with very large caseloads. I would encourage parents who
have had a good experience to tell us about it, so we can herald good practice.
However - there's always a however, unfortunately - too often parents
are still being told the wrong information or LAs are not playing by
the rules (i.e, the law). Too many in SEND and in social care
departments are still behaving as if the Children and Families Act was
just a bad dream, best ignored. This is very perplexing to me as the law
is clear to read and to follow, so what's happening to make compliance a
bonus rather than the minimum expected?
Recently, I heard about something happening to a number of families
regarding attempts to get social care help, that needs to be
highlighted. Hopefully those who ARE doing good work in LAs can make
sure it doesn't happen in their departments.
Nathan Davies of solicitors HCB, has written to explain what, in his experience, has been happening.
Threatened with care proceedings after asking for support...
It is common, in my experience, for parents of children with autism
to feel that concerns expressed to local authority professionals are
often discarded, or that there is a distinct lack of understanding of
the condition itself. This leads to disputes and disagreements between
the parties. These issues tend to arise once parents have realised that
they cannot continue without extra support or an alternative placement
be sourced for their son or daughter. The request being made is often
the trigger point for intervention in some form by the authority;
usually via its social services department.
The prevalence of social services intervention has steadily risen in recent times. In practice, the possibility of it being
initiated by the authority remains on the increase, despite this being a
highly controversial, and often inappropriate, tactic.
Your word against theirs
The problem parents in this position face is that it is often their
word against that of school staff or local authority professionals and
that is never a good starting position. The root issue however, is the
aforementioned lack of understanding of the condition itself. Those on
the high-functioning end of spectrum often present very differently
across a variety of settings. The fact that a child presents as very shy
and reserved in school and then explodes into one exhibiting
challenging behaviour at home, is very hard for some professionals to
fathom and can lead to them questioning parenting ability.
Parents struggling to cope and requiring additional support in the
family home, are often deterred by the threat of intense scrutiny and
criticism by social services. The possibility of raising child
protection issues or launching even care proceedings (in extreme cases)
are tools local authorities are increasingly using, especially during
these times of austerity and public sector cuts. But cuts can in no way
be an excuse for such unnecessarily heavy-handed approaches being
employed.
Nathan Davies
Professional guidelines
The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) has guidelines
relating to standards of conduct, performance and ethics each registrant
must uphold (this includes social workers). One of the pillars of
practice is for the professional to ‘work within the limits of their knowledge and skills’.
Given this, it is fundamental to ensure that each professional is
appropriately trained and/or knowledgeable to a reasonable degree in
autism to discharge their duties to the child and family appropriately.
If this is not done, one cannot expect a proper assessment of their
social care needs to be undertaken; thereby polluting the entire
process. Without such understanding of the condition, the HCPC
guidelines specify that the matter should be referred to another
practitioner if what the chid needs would be beyond the scope of their
practice but this is rarely, if ever, done. It cannot be emphasised
enough how important this is, especially when it is a requirement for
each HCPC registrant to ‘promote and protect the interests of service users and carers’.
Below are some anonymised case examples which show how these strategies are being used by local authorities throughout the UK:
Case Study 1:
This concerned parents in England of a child with high-functioning
ASD. Given her high-achievements at school, the child had attended
mainstream school well into her teenage life (without an EHCP). Even
when concerns were raised over challenging behaviour in the home as a
result of her inability to cope at school, these were immediately
treated as the parents over-exaggerating the child’s difficulties, even
after they had secured a diagnosis for her from a multi-disciplinary
team in the private sector.
The local authority, when requested to assess her additional learning
needs, took action; they proceeded with social services intervention, a
flawed and malicious assessment and subsequently placed the child on
the Child Protection Register. After seeking legal advice, the family
challenged the authority, ultimately leading to a retraction. The child
has now been issued with an EHCP with the SEN Tribunal agreeing that a
specialist ASD placement be named.
Case Study 2:
This related to a family in South Wales, who again experienced great
difficulties with their local authority. The child had a diagnosis of
Pathological Demand Avoidance but the parents had been unsuccessful in
securing a specialist placement for their son via the Tribunal process,
with the assistance of an advocate.
Given the extreme levels of aggressive behaviour in the home
environment (and his inability access a school at all), it was
imperative for the authority to accommodate the child, pursuant to
section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The authority did so, but
thereafter sought to target the family with a variety of unfounded
allegations, unlawful s.47 investigations and blame for the child’s
behaviour was attributed to perceived ‘bad parenting’, a manifestly
unreasonable position to hold.
These issues were appropriately resolved in the parents' favour, who
were issued with a comprehensive and unreserved apology from the
director of social services. The child now attends a suitable local
provision and is thriving.
We need to be aware...
Unfortunately, scenarios such as the above are becoming more common
and intimidation of parents who are simply trying to get help for their
child is often difficult for many to comprehend. Parents being penalised
or vilified for seeking support for their disabled child is not right
in any society, yet it appears that in 21st century Britain
this is perfectly acceptable in some LAs. Awareness of this issue being
made known to the public can only help parents in similar situations.
Unlike the report last year authored by Margaret Kenealy Jones, this
report has not been used to revise history nor used as a vehicle to
whitewash unprofessional behaviour and systemic failings within the
children's department of Cyngor Gwynedd and this is to be welcomed.
Saying that the report does appear to have some glaring ommissions and anoma-lies -
"Over the years, the Customer Care Officer have successfully managed to
establish close working links with the teams, managers and the legal
section as a means of discussing and resolving issues. This is reflected
in the low number of complaints reaching Stage 2 of the Complaints
Procedure.
It is fair to say that there has been a clear trend over the past 3
years, that theChildren and Family Support Department have not had a
complaint escalate toStage 2. This is down to the professionalism the
Team Managers and SeniorManagers show when dealing with complainants;
they understand theimportance of a local resolution and by discussing
directly with the complainant they are able to address matters as soon
as possible..."
Er...but Mrs Hughes there is a stage 2 complaint ongoing against
Children and Family Support Department raised on the 25th May and due
for completion any day now. Why has the complaint not been included in
your report figures ?
I notice the Adult services acknowledge there is an ongoing stage 2
investigation and though not completed is included in their figures.
Marian Parry Hughes also crows that the department have had no complaint escalate to stage 2 over the past three years.
But that is down to one senior manager, Aled Gibbard, closing a
complaint - without informing the complainant and your department
refusing to escalate another complaint to the second stage, hence the
intervention of the Ombudsman.
And knowing that to then go on and write -
"In comparison with other Local Authorities in North Wales, it is
understood that Gwynedd have been successful in managing complaints at
Stage 1 whereas other Local Authorities have a higher proportion of
complaints progress to Stage 2".
and diss the conduct of other LA's in Wales is...distasteful to say the least.
More info on Gwynedd Council here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/
Mark James' property dealings down in Cardiff Bay seem to have reached the ears of the Western Mail today, with an interesting article about residents' concerns over the management of their flats.
WalesOnline 14th August 2017
Blogger Jac o'the North recently went into a lot more detail in two posts, Baywatch 1 & 2, both of which I linked to here and urge you to read.
Mr James is a director of various Right To Manage (RTM) companies for
Century Wharf flats and is also a director of a private company Building
and Estate Solutions Today Ltd (BEST) set up in March 2017 with two
business associates. All this information is freely available on
Companies House website.
Aside from his burgeoning management empire, Mr James' property
portfolio includes at least one flat in Century Wharf and two in another
complex in Cardiff Bay, and he is also a registered landlord. (He also
has a £250 per month hold over Caebrwyn's humble abode for his damages
from his illegally funded counterclaim).
Amongst the issues some residents have with Mr James and the management
of the Century Wharf complex is that flats are let for overnight stays,
Airbnb, etc which is contrary to the terms of the leaseholds, as well as
disturbing for the long term residents. I am also told that Mr James
and his business associates seems to have 'taken over' the RTM Board and
there is some speculation that the new company, BEST, may be seeking to
contract maintenance and management work for themselves, and expand
their interests elsewhere, not just Century Wharf.
The other issue is the appointment as a manager in the complex of a
young lady, a former tenant of one of Mr James' flats, who, according to
sources, has little or no experience in the field of property
management and was introduced to the post by Mr James himself...
Then there is the manner in which Mr James has dealt with criticism, and
I am told that he runs things in the Bay in an extraordinarily similar
fashion to the way he runs the council. Needless to say, this is not a
good thing. There are claims to legal advice which are never disclosed,
claims to ministerial 'contacts', and veiled legal threats to those who
question his actions.
Having been involved in litigation with Mr James myself for a number of
years I have absolutely no reason to doubt any of the claims and
allegations I have heard, and I've heard quite a few.
His responses to residents, as reported in the Western Mail article are
quite revealing. He dismisses their concerns over the short stay lets as
having no evidential basis; stag parties and hen-dos are no more
disturbing that long term lets..says he, from the comfort, and quiet, of
his home in Carmarthen...
He then goes on to claim that there is not only a 'cancer' in the
complex (presumably this is a charming reference to dissatisfied
residents) but the young lady's appointment was all above board; having a
personal knowledge of the 'candidate' was an advantage, apparently, and
avoided all the fuss of advertising for the post...
I'm sure readers are getting the drift by now, and that Mr James has
quite a time consuming 'hands-on' approach to his affairs in the Bay...
With that in mind, and let's not forget the many months spent chasing
myself through the civil and criminal court, let alone his extensive
involvement with the Swansea City Deal, isn't it time he was asked how
he squeezes in his £170,000 a year role as chief executive of
Carmarthenshire Council? And, for the avoidance of doubt, has anyone
asked about any potential conflicts of interest yet?
And a final point, if Mr James is content to take public money to pursue his legal affairs, and use council facilities as if they were his own,
who's to say he hasn't furthered his own business (or other) interests
in exactly the same manner, and with exactly the same arrogance?
Freedom of Information responses from Carmarthenshire Council can be a mixed bag.
Sometimes they try to baffle you with b******t, (appointment of
Monitoring Officer, Linda Rees Jones) and sometimes there are bizarre
refusals (top secret transfer of public toilets to community councils).
Occasionally, a few interesting beans are spilled, (the, er, 'car park
deal', released whilst the chief executive happened to be confined to
his potting shed courtesy of Gloucestershire police) whilst sometimes
they're met with hellfire, brimstone, and raging defensiveness (asking
for correspondence between County Hall and an evangelical church).
My latest FOI request concerned the Wellness Village thingy at Delta
Lakes, Llanelli. More specifically, how much the council has spent on
the project so far.
My request was clear and asked for information from 2013 to date. I also
asked for the cost of any 'works' to be detailed in the response.
The response duly arrived, scant in detail (a hallmark of the whole
project so far) but, aside from the match funding from other partners,
the figure for the council itself was £32,597.50.
Unfortunately the information only went back to 2016, not 2013 as I'd
requested, and didn't include any of the 'works' such as preparing and
raising the site so the whole thing doesn't get washed away. It's not
called Delta Lakes for nothing.
Given the omissions I asked the council to review their response, the
outcome of which arrived yesterday with a new figure, slightly erm,
higher than the first at £564,427.72...
At some point soon the council might even get round to submitting the planning application, which in itself has cost £34,000...
The full thread of the FOI request, and responses, can be seen here. There
will be more on the Wellness venture in due course, and I've also asked
Welsh Government for some figures, but this is an illustration of how,
when a council doesn't routinely publish spending details, and has a
culture of defensiveness; scrutiny and monitoring can be problematic.
Whilst I'm on the subject, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill
is slowly wending its way through parliament and, as the title suggests,
hopes to extend the reach of the FOI Act. The Statement of Purpose (in
full here) sums up the aims;
'The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill will seek to make housing associations, local
safeguarding children boards, Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and the Housing
Ombudsman public authorities for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, whilst
making information held by persons contracting with public authorities subject to the Freedom of
Information Act 2000...'
All very welcome and interestingly it includes Returning Officers. A
request I made some years ago concerning fees paid to our Returning
Officer/chief executive was considered by Mr James to be an outrageous
invasion of his personal space...I might as well have been asking for
his bank details and PIN number.
(all previous FOI requests mentioned in this post can be found by searching this blog, they're there somewhere!)
As the council scratches around to fund the 'plan' it not only plunders
most of the 'Development Fund' (waiving aside the 25% limit) for new
enterprises, but proposes the sale of Ammanford Town Hall, the council's
main customer service centre in the east of the county. Rumours are
also rife that the recently refurbished Llandeilo offices are shutting
up shop, leaving no customer services in the entire eastern area.
In the event the Item was deferred, hopefully to have a rethink. Not
least of all because these proposals, which included the sale of public
buildings, were for an Exec Board decision only, with no reference to
full council at all.
The Executive Board...and the chief executive, just catching up with Cneifiwr's blog ;-)
You will recall, at the last council meeting, that the chief executive
was very, erm, persuasive about requiring a new Director, mainly to
oversee all these 'exciting projects' and his assorted 'visions'. The
post of Assistant Chief Executive (Regeneration and Policy) was to be
made redundant to make way for the new Directorship of White Elephants.
An amendment was put forward by Labour to cap the new salary (and that
for a new Director of Education) to £112k per year from the proposed
£123k pa.
The chief executive, Mr James, became even more 'persuasive' and the vote was lost.
No time was lost and the advert went out immediately (all posts over
£100k must be advertised nationally) only to strangely disappear a few
days later. Even more mysterious was an urgent convening of 'Appointment
Committee A', which met today.
According to several reliable sources I was spot on with my earlier prediction as to who strolled, permanently, into the new Directorship post
with an extra £20k per year. Apparently there were a few other
enquiring applicants (who must have been remarkably quick off the mark)
but they were rapidly deemed unsuitable..leaving a shortlist of one and a
recommendation from the chief executive.
It's amazing how quickly the wheels of Carmarthenshire local government
can turn when a new directorship is on the cards... to the casual
observer it might appear that the whole exercise was pre-planned. Oddly,
there's no rush to appoint the new Director of Education and that
process will take place later in the year, maybe there's no one in the
pipleline for that one...
For what it's worth I also understand that the vote was not entirely unanimous.
But back to the vote at the last meeting of full council over directors'
pay. To most observers, aside from political activists and point
scorers this was a rare opportunity for councillors to reflect the views
of most residents and make a small stand against the eye-watering
salary levels of our little rural county's top brass. As I said, it was
lost by 32 votes to 18, with 14 abstentions.
Here are the 32 councillors who voted against tackling fat cat pay;
Plaid Cymru;
Glynog Davies, Quarter bach
Handel Davies, Llandovery
Emlyn Dole, Llannon
Hazel Evans, Cenarth
Tyssul Evans, Llangynderyn
Ken Howell, Llangeler
Peter Hughes Griffiths, Carmarthen Town North
David Jenkins, Glanamman
Alun Lenny, Carmarthen Town West
Dorian Phillips, Llanboidy
Susan Phillips, Hengoed
Emlyn Schiavone, Carmarthen Town West
Dai Thomas, Pen-y-Groes
Gareth Thomas, Hendy
Gwyneth Thomas, Llangennech
Elwyn Williams, Llangunnor
Dorian Williams, Abergwili
Eirwyn Williams, Cynwal Gaeo
Independent Group;
Sue Allen, Whitland
Arwel Davies, Cilycwm
Anthony Davies, Llandybie
Ieuan Davies, Llandybydder
Joseph Davies, Manordeilo and Salem
Rob Evans, Dafen
Phillip Hughes, St Clears
Andrew James, Llangadog
Giles Morgan, Swiss Valley
Hugh Shepardson, Pembrey
Mair Stephens, St Ishmael
Jane Tremlett, Laugharne
Edward Thomas, Llandeilo
The abstentions included several Plaid Cymru councillors, and one
independent voted with Labour. The full list will appear in the Minutes.
Update 2nd August;
Also on Monday's Exec Board agenda was an exempt item about the
Guildhall in Carmarthen town centre. This was bought by the council last
year for £225,000 from the Crown Court service after the court closed.
The Carmarthen Journal reports that an heritage funding bid of £100k to repair and maintain the listed building has now failed.
What is worse is that the £225,000 came out of the social care budget. It was an Exec Board decision with no reference to full council.
Whether the county council will step in and cough up the necessary cash,
given the current drive to flog off public buildings, remains to be
seen, but, as I reported last year when they bought it, the warnings signs were already there.
I notice Cyngor Gwynedd appear not to have updated their website
and still make no mention that one of the cases that they reference has
been ongoing for years.
First contact with the Gwynedd Children and Supporting Families Team was in 2007/8 and was appalling.
The family had to endure missed appointments, staff that were
untrained and abusive comments from those involved in the child’s care.
MSBP and poor parenting were all thrown at the family.
One so called professional, Dawn Wimpory, failed to diagnose the child and so many years have been wasted because of it.
Perhaps you should have tried engaging him with music therapy, Dawn ?
That would have taken longer than the 20 minute consultation you gave the child.
A comment from one of the service managers in a review meeting “If
he was my child…..” led to the manager going off sick when the
Independent Investigators tried to interview him for an explanation.
An illness that lasted for months and so the report was published without him being interviewed.
The report does mention Llyr Ap Rhisiart’s absence and the fact
that when he does finally return from illness he would not be in the
same job.
But the question remains, Mr Ap Rhisiart.
What would you have done with the child who has Autism, PDA and other complex issues if he was yours ?
Someone even suggested clearing the child’s bedroom and locking them in.
The child was 7 years old.
The Investigators found 16 points of complaint and bad practise – including lost correspondence and files – all upheld.
That was in 2010 and nothing has changed. In fact, the situation is far worse.
So I say again to Cyngor Gwynedd raising a complaint does not make
people unreasonable – it simply means that unprofessional standards and
bad behaviour should always be challenged.
June 05 .................... Intimidation becomes more threatening.......
The intimidation was getting worse and
taking on a physical side. We were now constantly being waylaid as we
went out and came back home. Friends visiting were also subjected to
the Thomases unwelcome presence as they had to stop to open the gate.
Karen Thomas was spending a lot of time in the right of way area and was
now constantly either filming us or taking pictures over our gate. She
was also videoing anyone arriving to visit as they drove down the right
of way. Our local farmer had been threatened. He had been told not to
cut our fields and three of his tyres on his land rover had been cut.
Due to the local police not giving us any
support we had turned to the media. We had also made contact with an
ex police officer for guidance and advice.
July 05
Our friendly farmer had come again to turn
the hay. He stayed and had a cup of tea with me, and asked if I would
open the gate the Thomases had erected at the top of our right of way
as the lane was now too narrow for him to get out of his tractor. I
had gone ahead of him and opened the gate. As he drove out Karen Thomas
was waiting for him in order to take pictures of him.
I began walking back down the right of way
when I was aware Karen Thomas was following down behind me. I then
felt a huge push into my shoulder which knocked me into the metal crash
barriers. As I recovered she was standing in front of me blocking my
way. Her very threatening body language, hands on hips, was shocking.
She refused to move out of my way. When I asked her to move out of my
way and never to do that to me again her response was "what are you
going to do about it". I naturally felt very threatened and scared by
her as there was no-one else around - I was totally alone again, and I
knew the police would say there were no witnesses. I was awaiting a hip
operation at the time and this was appalling behaviour to be assaulted
in this way, and clearly the nature of the intimidation had taken on a
different tone. She warned me to stay out of her business, then stepped
aside and allowed me to walk down to my gate. I reported this to the
police but as I expected I was told 'it's your word against hers'.
Again, if the police had asked to view her CCTV cameras they would have
seen exactly what had occurred, but they declined my suggestion.
Eddie was constantly being confronted in
the right of way as he left for work, as he stopped to open the top gate
- a gate which had been installed to make life difficult for us. One
particular morning as Eddie was walking back to his car after opening
the gate to drive out, the neighbour was as usual in the right of way
and deliberately barged into him knocking him into his car. This
behaviour was completely alien to us. As we didn't have any security,
but did have a camcorder, I took to filming Eddie driving out each
morning. In the evening, he would stop and telephone me when he was
close to home, and again I would film him driving back in. What had our
lives become? This camera was thus far our only witness, but would
hopefully deter the neighbours from these physical threats in our right
of way. We had no other way out of our property and this couldn't go
on.
Wherever
we were on our property the neighbours would make their presence felt.
Whether we were working in our garden - tending to our horse - mucking
out stables - playing with our four dogs etc. we would be whistled at
or called out to. Karen Thomas would frequently be leaning over our
gate, watching us over the boundary hedges, or sitting on the bank
behind their newly erected shed. We were followed around wherever we
went. I was feeling a prisoner in my own home as I was becoming more
nervous and anxious whenever I had to go outside. I wasn't enjoying the
garden any more nor was I wanting to go down to the stables. Our lives
were no longer pleasurable.
Beer bottles and beer cans were now
appearing on our fields along with old knuckle bones. Sheep skulls were
hung on branches of trees around our boundary. We felt impotent and at
our neighbours mercy. I had begun to believe there was some other
reason the police were not giving us any support. Having made contact
with a barrister and a race relations director in Cardiff they both
confirmed the police should have been doing more to help us, especially
as there was a history of aggressive and threatening behaviour towards
others before us. We were becoming desperate for help.
Andrew
Thomas had taken to tailgating us as we drove out, and on this day drove
his HGV within feet of our small car. I was terrified. We felt
compelled to drive faster and faster to get away from him. It was the
wrong thing to do but when feeling under such threat knowing we had no
support from anyone, flight instinct takes over. The first chance we
had, we swerved off the road, at speed, and let him drive past us. His
conduct was menacing, and of course again, we reported it to the
police. The police said they were logging these incidents but no action
as yet could be taken because it was our word against theirs. This was
the theme. When we spoke to our kindly ex police officer over these
matters he was adamant that this was wrong. He said the police do not
require witnesses when there is a clear pattern of behaviour and should
have been at the very least warning the neighbours. I had always
believed the police protected people against this kind of dangerous
behaviour, but in our case they weren't. The feeling of isolation just
kept growing.
Our lives were a total misery and we were suffering
in the same way as the two families before us had suffered. Not only
were we now abused on a regular basis but we were still having to
contend with the noise from industrial machinery, maintenance on HGVs,
horrendous noise from the constant quarrying and the many other
disturbances to our quality of life. It was obvious that Blaenpant was
being developed for an ever expanding industrial business - with zero
planning permissions and we were suffering the consequences of it.
We had by now logged a long list of
incidents with the police but still no intervention nor help from them,
even though they were aware of the nature of the neighbours and their
intimidation and threats to others. Carmarthen Council were continuing
to deny the existence of the obvious haulage business and the many
other industrial operations from a site within meters of our home, even
though there was an abundance of evidence to warrant enforcement and
most certainly applications for change of use to industrial. It
appeared that the neighbours had the support of all local authorities
and we had none. It certainly felt that way and was a very lonely place
to be in. Our plans had to be put on hold and our future was
exceedingly bleak. We had no chance of getting away from this nightmare
situation.
July 05
It was a Sunday and I had driven to the
post box which was about a quarter of a mile away to post letters. As I
was returning the neighbours drove past me in the opposite direction.
Karen Thomas gesticulated at me from the passenger seat, but I was
relieved at least I didn't have to contend with name calling as I
entered my home. I had no longer opened the gate at the top of our
right of way, than the neighbours were driving back down towards me.
They had followed me back home. I was taunted and then assaulted for a
second time. Statements were taken and eventually I was the one
arrested and charged with assault. Yet again the police chose not to
view the Thomases CCTV which would have shown the entire incident and
shown Karen Thomas assaulting me. This was seriously wrong, and only
added to my belief that the police were acting against us and were for
some reason reluctant to take any form of action against our
neighbours. This became the scariest time of my life. Carmarthen
Council were doubtlessly responsible for the nightmare that was now our
life. Due to their unwillingness to follow correct planning procedures
which was allowing an industrial business to flourish unimpeded, and
their denial to everyone who asked questions, that there was no such
business operating, they were encouraging aggressive and threatening
behaviour towards anyone who was aggrieved by it. The violent nature of
the neighbours towards us should have caused concern to the Chief
Executive of this authority. The TV documentary alone should have seen
the end of our nightmare as the truth was shown. The question still
remains today - what was - and still is, the relationship between
someone employed by Carmarthen Council and these people, that has caused
so many people to have suffered at their hands.
It was
imperative now that we install some sort of camera at the top of our
driveway as witness to the shocking behaviour of the Thomases, ignored
by both the local police and Carmarthen Council.
Due to my
continued complaints to Carmarthen Council about the disturbance to our
lives caused by this industrial site I was advised to write to the
Ombudsman. I wrote to the Ombudsman but it is no easy task to put
together a complaint to the PSOW. I believed it was enough to simply
outline a general complaint. It is not, and due to my naivety in not
putting together enough information, my complaint wasn't investigated.
This is somewhat different to a complaint being investigated and not
upheld. However it is usual it seems that Carmarthen Council play on
the fact that a complaint not being investigated somehow exonerates them
from any wrongdoing and use it as a weapon against you for ever more
when putting in further complaints to them. The Ombudsman has recently
said "the fact a complaint has not been investigated does not mean
you didn't have a justified complaint, it just means it didn't warrant
resources being spent". Carmarthen Council need to understand that.
The
neighbours had by now received a letter from the council advising them
to remove the huge blue lorry away from our cottage, but a few weeks
later after the Thomases had refused to move it, the Council took the
view this was an agricultural storage unit for a few bales of hay. It
seemed irrelevant that they had just built a huge shed which now towered
over us, for the storage of hay.
End of July......We
were awoken this sunny morning to the noise from a JCB within inches of
our bedroom window. Our small cottage vibrated from this industrial
monster of a machine. It was removing all of the grass around the area
we looked out onto. We were fearful of what was coming next! Metal
fencing panels arrived a few days later together with an old container
and another smaller structure that appeared to be the rear of a small
pick-up. We were left with a sinking sickening feeling. The neighbours
had more plans for us. Something was going to arrive - but what? How
do you describe the worry and the feeling of being constantly under
threat with no-one to help or care? Bullying of any kind should not be
acceptable to either the police nor the local authority, but when it is
directly related to the council's negligence, it becomes somewhat
sinister.
August 05
Another week went by and still nothing had
appeared under our windows. We had been shopping, and as always we had
a feeling of foreboding upon our return, as we never knew what we were
going to be facing. We were now to discover what the removal of grass -
the metal fencing panels - the rusty old container was for. We were
now sleeping within feet of a couple of piglets. I was also soon to
discover the names Karen Thomas had chosen for them....
I have had an acknowledgement from the WAO, so when, or if, there is a substantive response, I will post it on this blog.
To; Wales Audit Office
Dear Sirs,
I wish to make a formal complaint concerning the chief executive of
Carmarthenshire County Council, Mr Mark James, relating to the use of
public resources to support a private legal case.
Mr James made a complaint against me for criminal harassment to Dyfed
Powys Police in April 2016. This related solely to a blog of which I am
the author [http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/], and was in a
private capacity, a position confirmed by the Council press office
itself on 12th July 2017 to BBC Wales
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-40583933].
I am in possession of police reports (attached) which state that the
police visited County Hall, Carmarthen on the 18th April 2016 to take Mr
James' initial formal complaint. The same day there was an extensive
search of my blog from a council IP address. At the time, as this was a
very unusual search, I saved the log. I have attached a printed version
for your information.
I believe that the contents of my blog was either saved or printed, by
persons unknown on a council computer to support Mr James' private legal
action and to supply information to the police for their criminal
investigation.
On the 20/21st June 2016 there was another similar unusual search of my
blog from a council IP address, this was a few days prior to the police
again attending County Hall to take Mr James' full statement on the 27th
June. This date is corroborated in another police report. Again I
believe this search was undertaken to provide support for this private
criminal complaint. I attach to this email the saved log from this
search, as a file.
Searches similar to these have been carried out before that date and
since, most notably around the time a renewed complaint of harassment
made by Mr James on the 15th December 2016 and a day or two prior to a
County Court hearing held on 23rd March 2017 where Mr James was
enforcing damages personally awarded to him from an earlier court case.
My blog was again used in evidence at that hearing.
I did not save the logs relating to these two instances but I understand
that this information could be retrieved from the council, by
yourselves, if you decide to investigate the matter.
The criminal charge of harassment against me was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service on the 10th July 2017.
I would be very grateful if you could investigate this matter. It is
highly inappropriate for the highest ranking officer in a public
authority to instruct another officer to provide information, via the
council IT infrastructure, for a private legal case, not only is it
unethical but it is also an improper use of council time and resources.
In addition, it is of paramount importance for the administration of
justice, and the right to a fair trial, that the parties are on an equal
footing in terms of representation and resources. For the chief
executive to have access, and to use, public resources in this way is a
breach of both the conduct expected of him as well as the basic tenet of
our justice system, placing myself at a distinct disadvantage.
With respect, I look forward to your confirmation that you will be
investigating this matter, and I would also be grateful for a brief
acknowledgement of this correspondence and the attached evidence.
If you require any further information please contact me via this email address, or by post.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Jacqui Thompson
10 Attachments;
Blog stats for the 18th April 2016 (6 pages)
Blog stats for 20/21st June 2016 (one file)
Police crime report for 18th April 2016
Police report (following my complaints to Dyfed Powys Police); Relevant dates confirmed on Page 5
The Assembly Member for Arfon, Sian Gwenllian, emailed me on the 5th
July and sent me a copy of the long overdue response from Marian Parry
Hughes, Head of Children and Families at Gwynedd Council.
Mrs Hughes begins by apologising for not responding to the AM and states -
"It certainly wasn't deliberate on my part."
So what was the reason for ignoring the AM for three months then ?
Mrs Hughes goes on to explain that Sharron Carter,
Senior Operational Manager, had responded to the solicitor by letter
and answered all relevant questions - in March.
The solicitor - after
searching their files - state they have not received a letter from
Sharron Williams Carter, from the date in question.
And if they had I would not have asked the AM - in April - for help in getting a response now - would I ?
I include a link to my
post where Cyngor Gwynedd lost another important letter - one that had
been placed in their secure letterbox in the Caernarfon office addressed
to Aled Gibbard.
Preparing paperwork for the meeting with the independent invesigators
dealing with my stage 2 complaint against Gwynedd council, I was
astonished by the council's use of a black marker to censor comments
made by managers to other agencies involved with the family.
The investigators were more shocked than I and told me there was no need
or reason for council staff to censor and it should not have happened.
Then I discovered Gwynedd council had also sent me the personal information of another person.
A
stage 2 complaint from 2010 showing serious failings in the Children
and Family Department at Cyngor Gwynedd was upheld by Independent
Investigators.
From
2014, meetings and decisions made concerning a child's future were
being held behind closed doors by managers and a social worker without
the knowledge of the parents or professionals involved in the case.
Worse
was the fact that a social worker and other professionals were being
ignored....as they raised concerns the child's needs were not being met.
A social worker who acted without thought for the code of ethics that he has agreed to uphold.
Or
worse - a social worker who has been instructed by managers to behave
so....inappropriately and against the interests of a vulnerable child -
the client.
The jury is still out.
A
failure of the children and families department to deliver the services
granted by Gwynedd social services and when they finally appeared -
after having their arm twisted by a solicitor - were shockingly bad.
So
bad that a complaint was raised and which Aled Gibbard closed -
against statutory policy - and also without informing anyone !?!?
Kenealy Jones - you said a search was made for the letter to Mr Gibbard he claims he never received. Did you look in the bins ?
I have sighted your email to your colleague, Aled, voicing your concern about where this case could go.
The
service(!) provided involved the support worker - yes him of the grunts
and no feedback - leaving the client alone in a car when he attended to
his own bits and pieces.
You did read the risk assessment, Iolo - yes ?
Is it council policy to leave vulnerable clients alone when in their care ?
All of this even before I asked the #Plaid_Cymru MP, Liz Saville Roberts for support.
Liz, who shook my hand, looked me in the eye and said "vote for me... and contact me if you ever need help".
MP's tut - some of them will say anything to get your vote.
The director of children’s services at Bury council is facing the sack for serious misconduct.
Mark
Carriline, who earns £110,000 a year, appeared before a disciplinary
hearing this week after he and council chief executive, Mike Owen, were
found to have ‘deliberately’ delayed carrying out child protection
procedures when a councillor was accused of indecent child image
offences.
As revealed by the M.E.N, Mr Owen quit on Sunday - the day before he was due to face his disciplinary hearing.
A
panel has concluded Mr Carriline was guilty of serious misconduct and
has recommended he be dismissed without notice. It is now up to the
council to ratify the recommendation.
Mr Owen and Mr Carriline were suspended in February with monitoring officer Jayne Hammond.
Ms
Hammond was suspended due to concerns over legal advice she had given
regarding the matter. She has been given a written warning.
Mike Owen has resigned from his position as chief executive at Bury Council But the panel concluded Mrs Hammond did not have direct
responsibility for child safeguarding, and an independent report did not
find that her legal advice had been wrong, and there was no evidence of
ulterior motive at work but there 'were lessons to be learned'.
Mr Owen, who was paid £157,000 a year will not receive any severance package, just holiday money due.
A
review this year found Mr Owen and Mr Carriline had ‘inexplicably’ and
‘deliberately’ delayed implementing safeguard procedures when
allegations about former Labour councillor Simon Carter first came to
light.
The then councillor for Tottington, who was on the adoption
register at the time, had been accused of making indecent child images
in spring 2015 and was convicted the following September.
An
investigation found Mr Owen and Mr Carriline had waited up to five weeks
to carry out a string of child protection measures that should have
been implemented within 24 or 48 hours of the allegations surfacing.
That included taking eight days to inform the school where he was a governor.
Carter
was immediately removed from the council’s list of people approved to
adopt children, but a report found child protection measures weren’t put
in place in the proper time frame.
Former Bury councillor Simon Carter admitted making indecent images of children In June 2015, Carter admitted 16 counts of making indecent images of children at Bolton Crown Court.
The
charges related to the downloading of images. There is no suggestion
any children were harmed as a result of the safeguarding delays.
In
a statement Bury council said: “A disciplinary panel of Bury Council
met on 19 and 20 June to consider an independent external investigation
report undertaken by Charles Bourne QC. The report examined disciplinary
allegations which had been made against three senior officers of the
council following a review into a historic child safeguarding issue.
“The
panel noted the resignation with immediate effect of the chief
executive and head of paid service, Mike Owen, which had been received
on Friday, 16 June 2017 and was effective at midnight on 18 June 2017.
"The
panel noted that the council had no choice in whether to accept the
resignation as it was a unilateral action on the part of Mr Owen. The
panel noted with concern the findings of the Independent Investigation
reports regarding Mr Owen’s role in the historic child safeguarding
issue under review, but noted that as Mr Owen was no longer an employee
of the council it had no jurisdiction to reach any conclusions on the
matter.
“In respect of a second senior officer, the panel considered
the Independent Investigation Report and heard representations from
witnesses and the officer and his representative. The panel considered
the recommendations of the report and concluded that the officer was
guilty of serious misconduct, further, the officer had failed to
maintain trust and confidence of the council and accordingly the panel
recommends to the full council that the officer is dismissed from the
service without notice.
“Having carefully considered the
Independent Report, the evidence and the representations of a third
senior officer, Jayne Hammond, the allegations against that officer were
resolved by the panel.
"Whilst there were lessons to be learned,
Mrs Hammond did not have direct responsibility for child safeguarding,
the Independent report did not find that Mrs Hammond’s legal advice had
been wrong, and there was no evidence of ulterior motive at work.”
The FOI request was simple, and it was made on 6 Jun 2016.
Over a year later Lewisham Council have failed to comply with their duty under the FOI Act to supply the information requested.
They have offered a number of exemptions, excuses, numerous broken
deadlines, even given unlawful excuses not covered under the FOI Act,
and delayed and delayed and delayed and failed to reply a number of
times.
Eventually after 8 months I was forced to make a complaint to the
Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer has the specific duty to
ensure the county council, its officers, and its elected councillors,
maintain the highest standards in all they do [11]
However this monitoring officer failed to do her job, she failed to
do her duty, she failed to answer nearly every question I asked her, she
even went on holiday when she said she would reply. She failed to
ensure the Council answer as required to do so by the FOI Act. She has
failed to ensure an internal review of the FOI is carried out as
required to do.
Unfortunately regulators such as ICO are slow to act and rogue
Councils know this and take advantage of it to delay. I have started
upon that route, but that is likely to take another two years and there
are many steps on that route and the ICO itself claims to be short of
staff and is already slow completing the very first step.
One course accessible to me and one of the most powerful is to name and shame.
Kath Nicholson is the monitoring officer. It is her duty to ensure the Council maintain the highest standards in all they do.
It is Kath Nicholson who has failed to do her duty as monitoring
officer to ensure the Council maintain high standards and reply
substantively within a year to a FOI request with the information.
It is Kath Nicholson who has failed to even maintain a legal
standard, never mind maintain the highest standards for herself and nor
ensuring the council’s officers maintain highest standards
Kath Nicholson it seems has set a slovenly, illegal standard and been as awkward as possible.
Kath Nicholson even actively refused to send the reply to one part
of the FOI to the public WDTK website, she maintains she will only send
it my personal email, which was given to her in the process of making
the complaint and not anything to do with the FOI itself.
The highest standard Kath or the lowest? Kath Nicholson
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to answer how Lewisham’s records are filed.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to say whether there is a digitised index.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to say whether
the records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee
has to be paid.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to explain what
was meant by an odd phrase “to retrieve this information would require
manual checks on all such individuals”
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to do an
internal review on the council claim that the 160 page “After Leeways”
Report cannot be found in 18 hours despite the fact it is the duty of
the Council to do.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to do an
internal review on the council claim that they cannot find a Review of
the Child Services from 1990 within 18 hours despite the fact it is the
duty of the Council to do so.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, illegally refuses to
send a copy of the Chief Executives report to the WDTK website. This was
the same report that the Council unlawfully claimed was Confidential
and would not be released. they clearly do not want it available to the
public.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to say whether
the Elizabeth Lawson “1 year on Report” was not done or it was done but
lost, and refuses to do an internal review into this.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to confirm what documents they hold.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to answer what
the legal reason was to refuse the “Chief Executives Report” or admit
that there were no legitimate reasons for refusal.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer refuses to process a
formal complaint about the staff involved in the delay of the FOI
request and the failure of the Council to answer my requests for
internal reviews and further information.
Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer, refuses to internally
review the whole request some 5 months after it was requested. It
appears as though staff have been told not even to acknowledge my
correspondence on this request.
*By “refuses” I mean she has not done so after repeated requests, and therefore this is a de facto refusal.
I have good reason to believe that there was widespread child sexual abuse in Lewisham Council, that was covered up at the time.
The actions of Lewisham Council and Kath Nicholson in particular are without doubt deliberately still delaying and covering up.
Perhaps Lewisham Council are using this time to find and shred or
destroy or “lose” documents that will incriminate Lewisham Council.
Perhaps they are taking steps to reduce their financial liability. That
would explain why they feel they can deliberately and openly flout their
public and legal duty yet are supposed to be public servants.
Have Kath Nicholson and Lewisham Council gone rogue? Are corporate interests a higher priority than public duty?
Is Kath Nicholson’s job as head of Law in conflict with her job as
Monitoring Officer. Quite clearly she is not carrying out her duties
properly as Monitoring Officer. Why? Does the Council support her
refusal to carry out her legal duty?
Are the Council refusing to do their public duties and acting on some interpretation of their corporate ones?
Is the Council paying people to cover up child sexual abuse?
That is a reasonable explanation that fits the facts.
How sick are the people involved who actively or passively cover up
the rape of children? What are their motives? What do they get in
return?
A much abbreviated history of the FOI correspondence with links follows, the full saga can be checked here [1]
Please could you send me a copy of
1. The dossier “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements”
published by the London Borough of Lewisham on March 19th 1987
2. The minutes of the Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985
3. Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984
4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986
5. Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report)
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report 2016 Sept 26 Answer (paraphrased) [1a]
“After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements”. Refused as it
is not recorded in a readily accessible form, too much time and money
Section 12(1) [1a]
Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985 Minutes provided see [1b]
Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984 –
refused not recorded in a readily accessible form – too much time and
money Section 12(1)
Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain
discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report) There are no records of a meeting on the date you quote.
Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report – Information not held
1. “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” dossier is
apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to
the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a
child abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several
children. It should from the size be relatively easy to find within your
files.
To help me understand could you explain how are Lewishams records
from this time filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised index
and also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an
external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To
retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain?
2. Thankyou for those minutes
3. Review of child services not able to be found. This was a major
revamp only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the
time limit?
4. “Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed
to be February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will
not be released”
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I
also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the
Report for your information.
5. Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986
This is link to a page 19 that has been supplied to me https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/0…
I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be
mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would
be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify
the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were
supplied to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?
You replied to my request of 1 Oct 2016 “Thank you for your recent
request. Your request is being considered and you will receive a
response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to
the application of any exemptions/exceptions”
I received a response to part of the request on 4 Oct, but a substantial part has not been replied to.
Nor have I received even a reply to my subsequent emails. If I do not
receive a reply I will therefore be forced to put in a complaint
against you.
Please tell me who the head of Freedom of Information Department is?
Please could you tell me who the Lewisham Council Monitoring Officer is presently?
Please could you tell me why I have not received a reply to my FOI of 1 Oct 2016 nor subsequent emails?
Please answer my requests as Lewisham Council is required to by law.
I gather that my next stage is to ask for an internal review. If I do
not receive reply to my requests by 5pm on 25th Jan 2017, please take
this a request for Internal Review [1d]
No further progress has been made on the FOI since Jan 23 despite several requests.
Summary of FOI
The Council
provided one set of minutes
refused two large reports that they claimed would take over 18 hours each to find
refused another report on “confidentiality”, ie grounds with no legality in FOI
maintained one meeting I requested a report for did not happen to
which I gave them information that it did, i heard nothing more
claimed not to hold another report
have refused to answer any questions or requests about this since
How would they know they did not hold one report yet they claim it would take them 18 hours to search for another?
Summary of Requests Outstanding
1 “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements” dossier is
apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to
the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a
child abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several
children. It should from the size be relatively easy to find within your
files. To help me understand could you explain how are Lewishams
records from this time filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised
index and also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an
external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To
retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain?
2 Review of child services not able to be found. This was a major
revamp only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the
time limit?
3 “Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to
be February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not
be released”
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I
also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the
Report for your information.
[Report still not been provided to this site as requested.
Attachments been sent to private email, which I do not wish to open as
they may be insecure, whereas on this site it is secure and public and
where I requested it and where it is Lewisham’s duty to provide it.]
4 Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986
This is link to a page 19 that has been supplied to me https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/0…
I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be
mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would
be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify
the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were
supplied to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.
5 Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?
6. Internal review on why all information requested has not been provided or questions even addressed.
–
Kath Nicholson appears to be the central figure in Lewisham as to why
the legitimate FOI request is not being processed lawfully or any
information is being released nor given about any aspect of the request
including an acknowledgment of questions referring to it [16]
It could be seen as worrying that Kath Nicholson has said –
“as local authority lawyers, we are working with politicians and so
have to be politically astute, too. My job is to help them do what they
want to do. In more than 30 years [in local government], I’ve only said
“You can’t do that” once or twice.” [13]
It is also worrying that she admits that her department is not overseeing child protection cases safely –
“The department has 103 live child protection cases being handled by
just eight solicitors. ‘An individual solicitor can safely handle
between 10 and 12 cases, except my staff are doing adult protection work
too,’ says Nicholson. ‘Cases can be hugely complicated, particularly
where there are six or seven children in the family.’” [13]
Most worrying is that Kath Nicholson is not doing her job properly as
Monitoring Officer, which has widespread repercussions throughout the
Council and Lewisham.
The truth about what is child sexual abuse happened in Lewisham
Councils “care” is not being revealed because she is not doing that job
properly. Perhaps she is helping politicians do what they want rather
than do what her Monitoring Officer job is? Perhaps there is a conflict
between being Head of Law and Monitoring Officer?
Kath Nicholson, Lewisham Council – Shame on you
Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.
The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
Useful post on Triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness[G] and Meditation[H] may be useful.
Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma[J]
Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring
change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together
We Can Heal” [N]
