So You Thought The Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Was A Caring And Respectable Trust ?

Annual Report imagery 270514

Picture shows the Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Board.

Blog posted 04 October 2015

SO YOU THOUGHT THE CORNWALL PARTNERSHIP NHS FOUNDATION TRUST WAS A RESPECTABLE AND CARING TRUST ?

The following is a Freedom of Information request to the Trust on 29 September 2015, regarding it’s involvement in assisting Cornwall Council rig Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessments by abusing and discriminating against mentally ill and vulnerable adults.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Geoff McLaughlin

29 September 2015

Dear Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust,

Dear Julie Dawson, Chief Operating Officer and Deputy CEO.

I wish to make a Freedom of Information Request.

My name is Geoffrey McLaughlin.

My contact address is : 34 Timber close, St Austell, Cornwall. PL25
5NZ.

My email address is : [email address], and is my preferred method
of contact.

You will recall Ms Dawson I made a FOI request on 10 April and was
unhappy with your reply of 20 April so requested a review on 27
April 2015, which was replied to by (cannot be named for legal reasons) due to your lengthy absence from the office.

She responded to only selected parts of the request in her
review and claimed the remainder was either exempt or related to
previous FOI Requests and Reviews. In my reply of 24 May I advised
her I could not accept her comments because I had never
requested an “Appeal of Freedom of Information Request FOI 46720”,
and because her comments related to FOI Requests and Reviews as far
back as February 2015.

(1) I request to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, what (cannot be named for legal reasons) meant when she stated
she had “independently reviewed” the request of 10 April 2015
involving her employer and fellow employees ?

(2) I request to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, why it was acceptable for her to introduce issues
into her review not mentioned in the original request of 10 April
2015 ?

I refer to the fact the review would have been refused by the Trust
had I introduced issues not mentioned in the original request ?

If (cannot be named for legal reasons) is clever she will already know she has
involved herself in a crime.

In reply to “This information is exempt from disclosure under
section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it is both a
repeated request and in addition both questions are exempt under
section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 200, as they
constitute personal information and disclosure of such would breach
an individual’s confidentiality”, unquote.

(3) I therefore request to know, and in the public interest and for
the record, what right the Trust has to dismiss requests which may
appear similar to previously unanswered requests ?

(4) I therefore request to know, and in the public interest and for
the record, what right the Trust has to deny me information
concerning an individual’s confidentiality and personal information
when the Trust itself has confirmed and recorded the individual’s
identity on the internet as being one (cannot be named for legal reasons) and that his
job title in 2012 was an “Assistant Practitioner” etc.

(5) I also request to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, why the Trust has decided not to protect or defend NHS
employee (cannot be named for legal reasons) reputation ?

I refer to the Council’s ‘Letter of Defamation’ sent to me over a
year ago for naming and shaming 2 of it’s employees on social
media. The fact I have since named and shamed 6 council employees
on social media, including (cannot be named for legal reasons) in excess of 500 times
without any legal consequences whatsoever perhaps says it all.

In reply to “The Trust does not hold this information in a
reportable format. Collating this information would exceed the
‘appropriate limit’ as defined in The Freedom of Information and
Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulation 2004 SI
2004 No 3244). Therefore, under Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, this information is exempt as a public
authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information
if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the
request would exceed the appropriate limit”, unquote.

(6) I therefore request to know, and in the public interest and for
the record, why the Trust does not have this information at hand ?

I refer to the Trust’s obligations and Duty of Care to provide
Representatives from the Health Authority on each Welfare Priority
Assessment Panel in the best interest and wellbeing of applicants
who also come under the health umbrella of the Trust ?

The Trust is already aware I find it deeply disturbing that the
Trust still has no idea how many mentally ill and vulnerable adults
it has neglected, abused and discriminated against as a direct
result of the Trust not representing them at Welfare Assessments.

(7) I therefore would like to know, and in the public interest and
for the record, how the Trust can prevent this negligence
continuing if the Trust does not even know the scale of the problem
and is unwilling to look by collating its information ?

(8) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, why no qualified Representative from the Health Authority
was on any of the 3 Welfare Priority Assessment Panels that
assessed my late wife and other applicants in 2012 ?

(9) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, how many times the Trust has failed to provide a
Representative of the Health Authority on each Welfare Priority
Assessment Panel ?

(10) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, when the Trust first realised Cornwall Council had falsely
described (cannot be named for legal reasons) as a “Community Psychiatric Nurse, Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust” ? and also as a “representative”
from the “Mental Health Team” in his capacity as a Panel member ?

Titles which contradicted advice the Trust gave to the PHSO in 2014
that (cannot be named for legal reasons) is a support worker, and although he is employed by the Trust, he was not acting in an NHS capacity whilst he was a
Panel member”, unquote.

Whilst I appreciate you will suggest I take it up with the Council
via FOI again, I am trying to establish when you the NHS Trust
decided to cover-up and deny everything.

(11) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, (cannot be named for legal reasons) came to be a Panel member without it not
involving some form of agreement, discussion or arrangement by
the Trust – (cannot be named for legal reasons) employer ?

(12) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, how many times the Trust has agreed to employee (cannot be named for legal reasons) being a Welfare Priority Assessment Panel member ?

Your previous reply that the Trust does not have this information
and that I should take it up with the Council via a FOI request is
rejected on the grounds that (cannot be named for legal reasons) is an employee and
representative of the NHS Trust and as such the Trust is ultimately
responsible for its employees.

(13) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, if Trust employee (cannot be named for legal reasons) was still under contract
with the NHS Trust whilst he was a Panel member ?

(14) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, how long the Trust has known its employee (cannot be named for legal reasons)is a fraudster ? I refer to (cannot be named for legal reasons) falsely signing himself as the”Mental Health Team Representative” on a Welfare Assessment Panel
Form in 2012 ?

(15) I would like to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, if (cannot be named for legal reasons) is still employed by the Trust despite him being untrustworthy and having broken the terms of his contract ?

I refer to (cannot be named for legal reasons) knowingly breaking the law.

(16) I also request to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, if the Trust advised the PHSO in what capacity NHS ‘support
worker’ (cannot be named for legal reasons) was a Panel member ?

(17) If not, did the PHSO request to know in what capacity the NHS
employed ‘support worker’ was a Panel member ?

(18) I also request to know, and in the public interest and for the
record, if the Trust advised the PHSO why it did not provide a
Representative of the Health Authority on the Welfare Assessment
Panel ?

(19) If not, did the PHSO request to know why the Trust did not
provide a Representative of the Health Authority on the Welfare
Assessment Panel ?

In reply to (cannot be named for legal reasons) decision to include the PHSO and the LGO into the Appeal/review, I acknowledge the ‘Catch 22’ situation I
found myself in the moment I lodged a complaint with the LGO
involving 2 distinct and separate bodies. That the LGO had no
authority to investigate the NHS Trust or its employee or determine
matters relating to health and medical issues.

Although the LGO did meddle in health issues to protect Cornwall
Council, and as a consequence the NHS Trust also, I have never
forgotten the LGO’s grandiose opinion that Welfare Assessments were
not medical as such. This despite Council Policy 23.2 stating the
Welfare Panel considers an applicant’s “medical and welfare need”.

When the PHSO was given an opportunity to investigate the NHS
Trust’s roll she rejected my complaint on the grounds it had
nothing to do with the NHS, and recommended I take my complaint up
with the LGO again. That (cannot be named for legal reasons) roll as a nomad in no man’s land had enabled the PHSO to perversely avoid NHS involvement and
therefore protected the Trust, avoided any potential of having to
contradict or disagree with the LGO’s decision and, as a
consequence, protected Cornwall Council also.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, Cornwall Council also recently mentioned
the LGO to the Freedom of Information Commissioner to avoid
answering FOI request. That unless the ICO could prove the LGO
wrong the Council was right. That the Council did not then have to
explain in what capacity  (cannot be named for legal reasons) was a Panel member on the Welfare Assessment Panel, or why the Council lied about (cannot be named for legal reasons) job description, or why the Council wilfully engaged in fraud the
moment  (cannot be named for legal reasons) made a false declaration on an official document etc. etc..

Please be assured further cover-ups, denials, stonewalling and
misinformation will only delay the inevitable.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff McLaughlin

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s