Statutory Bodies and Regulators vs solicitors[or not].

Discussion in 'Legal and financial issues' started by abadam, Jan 26, 2015.

  1. abadam

    abadam Registered User

    May 28, 2013
    29
    I'm wondering about how effective statutory bodies are in the context of monitoring and acting on breaches of their codes/constitutions,where monitoring includes responding to reports of breaches by concerned/related people.And whether remedies are timely and effective.
    To what extent can statutory bodies be relied on to resolve issues that dont seem right to the inexperienced and uneducated eye?
    Can I rely on statutory bodies to provide effective solutions,either by way of information or a course of action that is clearly based on the problem or perceived problem?[If I can locate the appropriate authority/statutory body!]
     
  2. Norfolkgirl

    Norfolkgirl Account Closed

    Jul 18, 2012
    514
    From my experience I haven't been able to trust ANY organisation. Corruption and cover ups seems to play a major part where my area is (which is NOT Norfolk by the way).
     
  3. abadam

    abadam Registered User

    May 28, 2013
    29
    I dont know if it's different sort of law/regulations involving the welfare of the public,rather than protecting property,money etc.
    The kind of distress and suffering brought on by the abuse of rights,person and welfare both on the abused and the people who care for them,and then the absence of effective redress,or even acknowledgement of issues is extreme.
    I've been through the ringer,felt I had been reasonable throughout-mad as hell but never out of my box,processed,given morsels of hope and nothing happened.
    My conclusion which arrived last night was that because nothing happened,nothing was ever going to happen.
    The agencies I approached simply didn't do what I thought they would.They didn't do anything and absolutley nothing registered.
    The other thing was that I have found out recently that there are other agencies whose remit covers the same areas where i believe in the cold light of day,there are really serious abuses,not life-threatening more life-quality threatening,personhood threatening,dignity threatening,chuck in some deprivation of liberty and undue influence.
    But I cant think that an agency whose remit is to deal with these things but doesn't is going to direct you-or me,to another agency whose remit is in that area.Meaning that you get the benefit of their unresponsiveness with the related stringing along and the exhaustion of hope and the despair for the person you love.
    And it's unbelievably useless.
    So the involvement with agencies that string you along and their processes of despair actually prevent contact with and knowledge of agencies that actually might help.It's strange.
    I think these agencies need to either acknowledge the issue and make a proposal within their remit about how they are going to address the issues,or provide you with an adequate explanation about why they are not issues,why your loved one is suffering.
    The wonderfully expedient thing to do,which saves a lot of hastle, is simply to treat people like they are not persons,deserve no respect,have no rights.
    Boy,you can really move them along then.
    I think the wonderful notions in the MCA,in the back pages of Social services,honouring the rights of the person whatever affliction they have,are too expensive.
    They have flat-lined,except one, in my experience.
    I really hope there are agencies out there who are effective and practise their remit.
    I'm going to look some more.
    I suppose my issue is:if there are these statutory regulatory bodies/agencies,if there are these wonderfully inspiring principles to guide their operation,and developing as we speak,why are they not effective?
    Why dont they work?
    That's what they're supposed to do.That's why they exist.
    I have said things to people in these agencies and they would really worry me if I heard them from someone and incredibly they dont get any rise at all.
    It's unbelievable.
    It's unaffordable.
    I'm sort of being nudged to think that if you have money,you can afford rights and their protection and it sounds great,but if you haven't the money,you're going to have to scavenge and struggle for rights whether you know it or not,i.e.,you simply dont matter.
     
  4. Norfolkgirl

    Norfolkgirl Account Closed

    Jul 18, 2012
    514
    #4 Norfolkgirl, Jan 26, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
    I think you and I have very similar issues we are grappling with where the agencies are not fit for purpose in the way we need them.

    My case was not just a matter of money (though was a large part of it) but the fact that my mum's abusers denied health assistance for her when she needed it and could have gotten it (privately and readily without any wait) when this right was taken away from her to "pay" the abusers. Neglect of her health needs was an initial part of the abuse the reason being so that the money went elsewhere, not on her care.

    Can I ask you to send me examples (by private messaging) of which agencies you have used and have been no help. There may be one or two I could advise you to try who I haven't tried yet (because I'm waiting to hear first from a Court of Protection solicitor for her advice). In my case the Police and Social Services failed to safeguard my mum (making many contradictory excuses) but it was only later on discovering they were involved in shielding the abusers (corruption and intimidating me as a witness of the original crimes, amongst other things) that those "professionals" too are effectively perverting the course of justice/assisting offenders etc. Mum is still at the mercy of those involved.
     
  5. nmintueo

    nmintueo Registered User

    Jun 28, 2011
    847
    UK
    You can't rely on anyone. Institutions might get it right sometimes, but you can't rely on it. When people, or statutory bodies, are sitting in judgement upon themselves, they'll naturally see things their way. Don't expect balance or objectivity, or even basic honesty.
     
  6. abadam

    abadam Registered User

    May 28, 2013
    29
    'Mum is still at the mercy of those involved.'

    My father has had his last years stolen from him.

    Very emotive issues.

    There are none so blind as those who do not want to compromise their colleagues,who do not want to be compromised,who do not want blotches on their CVs or play a part in those blotches appearing on others' CVs,who do not want to question the judgement of their colleagues in public,nor have their own judgement questioned.
    Which amass into a million reasons why oversight within organisations is a dead dog.It's amazing what the exclusion of a fact or two in a report can do,or a little twist in the tale here and there.
    The toolbox seemingly has a bottomless pit of devices for evading blame,culpability where collusion,ambition and fear are the enablers.
    Once protocols,safeguards,frameworks and legal requirements are not observed,you're going to get an invasion of s...ty humanity where the shoddiness and inhumanity increase exponentially,and the banging of doors reaches a crescendo.
    The protocols,safeguards,frameworks and legal requirements keep the thing right and provide the means to keep it on track.
    if they had been observed in the situation I'm in,I wouldn't be here and my father would be living out his life in the home he has always loved.
    Instead he has been lied to and deceived,let down by authorities,keeps stum to avoid more family conflict[the sacrificial sheep] and has given up hope of returning to his home.
    The stench is unbearable.
     
  7. min88cat

    min88cat Registered User

    Apr 6, 2010
    581
    I'm finding your posts quite difficult and convoluted to follow - could you explain in simple terms the exact problems you are experiencing
     
  8. Norfolkgirl

    Norfolkgirl Account Closed

    Jul 18, 2012
    514
    Welcome to my world!
     
  9. abadam

    abadam Registered User

    May 28, 2013
    29
    Simply put,highly questionable things have happened,and major things that should have happened didn't happen.
    When I have drawn attention to these things,which have allowed my father to end up in a place he never wanted to be,to spend his last days there[that's quite hard to think about or walk away from], to various bodies,whose explicit concerns have been constitutionally framed concern for the rights and well-being of vulnerable adults,my concerns have been ignored.
    I now feel that because I am concerned about my father on the basis of recorded fact
    in the light of what are his constitutional rights and concerned bodies,and have tried to right things for him and get him back home,I am an undesirable.
    I think that if wrongs are not righted,it achieves the same effect as a person banging on meaninglessly,without grounds.
    Having these concerns ignored has made them groundless concerns,and their impact on my father disregarded.
     
  10. Wirralson

    Wirralson Account Closed

    May 30, 2012
    661
    Abadam,

    Your post is framed in terms so opaque that it is difficult to understand from your posts what the abuse(s) you allege is/are. However, you do need to be pretty clear what the various Agencies actually do as opposed to individual litigation. Bodies such as the CQC are set up by statute and their powers are limited by that function. The CQC, for example, is mainly concerned with licensing and inspection. They are not set up to investigate individual cases, and their powers are limited by law. The Health Service Ombudsman can investigate individual cases of maladministration, but has limited powers and is not a substitute for litigation. Ultimately, if you wish to seek redress on behalf of your father for any wrongs done to him, your (or more accurately your father's) only recourse is to the Courts.

    W
     
  11. Norfolkgirl

    Norfolkgirl Account Closed

    Jul 18, 2012
    514
    On the subject of limited powers or not in the case of CQC, this may be of interest to posters on TP..... http://www.ukqcs.co.uk/useful-guides/7-ways-to-get-fined-by-the-care-quality-commission/
     
  12. abadam

    abadam Registered User

    May 28, 2013
    29
    #12 abadam, Jan 28, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
    Wirralson
    Thanks for your response which accurately identifies the dilemma.Among the issues I'm talking about is:

    Enabling decision-making,
    providing the means to optimise communication
    Placing the person at the centre of the decision-making

    Acting in the person's best interests and according to their wishes
    Providing an advocate

    In the absence of all of the above:

    issues concerning undue influence
    and Deprivation of liberty whereby the person is removed from any of the above and is moved around according to the motivations of others.
    Other legal concerns and other concerns.
    I am being opaque.I do not feel very confident.
    The above issues and others are the reason why I'm wondering can I rely on statutory regulatory bodies to make sure safeguards,protocols are in place top prevent abuse,or abuse having taken place with major impacts on the life of a vulnerable adult,my dad,can remedial action take place.
    These are the regulating bodies I'm referring to whose remit is supposed to redress abuse.Again it is finding the right regulatory body because for some reason,genuinely,these bodies do not share information about more appropriate agencies to use.If they dont address abuse issues,why are they there?
    As to using courts,Wirralson,Have you found out the cost of an hour of solicitor time?It would be a lot easier but the cost would be bonkers.
    This bears out the cost of rights versus scrounging in the light of ineffectual public bodies,and the process of scavenging for human rights and redress of abuse.
    Crumbs.
     
  13. Wirralson

    Wirralson Account Closed

    May 30, 2012
    661
    #13 Wirralson, Jan 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015

    Abadam,

    I have had to search in the archive forum under your name to find out what you were talking about. It might have been more helpful for you to have posted a link.

    I am assuming the events involved refer to this thread?:

    http://forum.alzheimers.org.uk/show...ings-engineering-move-of-father-with-dementia

    I am well aware of the costs of solicitors. I am currently invovled in seeking legal advice personally, and also I have some involvement in it in my job. £200 per hour plus VAT is about the cheapest you'll get, and litigation is more expensive, topping £400 per hour plus VAT easily. Nevertheless only the Courts have the powers to make and enforce the kind of decisions involved here. Unfortunately, your posts in that thread reveal a certain amount of confusion on your part about who does what. You appear to have written to social services about a power of attorney, and some of your concerns seem to focus on alleged breaches of the power of attorney. It is clear that you are not the holder of the power of attorney (you state explicitly that it is held by a brother and sister). You have also stated that after 4 months you and your wife were unable to continue, and that at that point a social services assessment was undertaken.

    It isn't entirely clear to me whether an assessment of your father's mental capacity (as laid down in the Mental Capacity Act 2005) was undertaken, but I think from your posts that it was, and must have been for the POA to be activated. That is a matter for the certificate provider. If you are challenging their competence in that, then you must litigate. Success is unlikely, simply because (a) certificate providers are usually medical or medico-legal and do (usually) know something about what they are supposed to be doing and (b) the courts take a pretty dim view of intra-familial rivalry.

    PoA's for Health and Welfare (if there was one) don't actually permit decisions to be taken by the PoA holder on where individuals should live. These are (usually) informal.

    But another issue is whether or not an assessment of was made your father's ability to continue to live (with arrangements) to continue in his own home. If there was an assessment (and there appears to have been) and the outcome of that assessment was that he could not continue to live on his own even with support, then his wishes become secondary to that fact. The fact that someone wth dementia (or anyone who lacks mental capacity) wishes a particular outcome is only one factor to be taken into consideration. The risks involved to the person, whether it is practically possible to implement them, how long such a solution will last before needing a further change are all factors that it would be reasonable for social services to take into account. And the PoA isn't relevant to the decision by Social Services for your father to reside with your brother, although it is relevant to the management of his property. The residence decision is a matter for statute law (AIUI the basis for such decisions is the general power to provide and promote for the welfare of persons with mental disorders (among other conditions) in Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It may also have involved (although you do not say so) a Guardianship order under section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983. If your father is resident at your brother's home, deprivation of liberty may indeed be involved (the Supreme Court in England and Wales ruled in 2005 - the Cheshire West case - that it is possible for deprivation of liberty to arise in a domestic setting). This would require a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) assessment by Social Services, but challenging this would involve legal action.

    In effect, what you are actually saying, is that a decision ended up be taken, and that you didn't like it. You have pinned this on your belief that your father's wishes were not ascertained or, if ascertained, were not acted upon. As I have pointed out above, the fact that a person with dementia expresses their wishes does not mean that those wishes automatically prevail over all other considerations in all circumstances. They may be taken into consideration, but overruled. My mother wished to die in her own home, but ended up being sectioned.

    So what can you do? Well, your remedies are mainly in private law, not with agencies. Regulatory agencies or the LGO are not a substitute for the Courts, but are supplementary to them. They (generally) don't have enforcement powers of the type you seem to seek. What little you can do through them seems to me to be as follows.

    As social services are involved, not the NHS, and as residential care is not involved, the CQC is irrelevant. From your posts it is hard to see any evidence of maladministration by social services, but if you have evidence of this (and what you have posted most emphatically is not evidence of maladministration) then your route is the Local Government Ombdusman (LGO) (at least in England - different provisions apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). To get there you ususally have to have exhausted the Local Authority's complaints procedure. It is not clear from your posts if you have done this. However, the LGO has no power to reverse decisions, but can only make recommendations. Based on my reading of what you have posted I doubt they would investigate, and even if they did, I am not convinced that you would get an outcome you would regard as favourable. But by all means try if you have not already done so.

    There are two avenues in law. First you could in theory apply of a judicial review of the process leading up to the decision for your father to reside with your brother. I am not clear that you have locus (the legal right to do this), and I cannot see any obvious grounds for doing so, although I'd expect the point about your father's wishes to be an issue. One problem with dementia is that those with the condition can be labile and suggestible, which means that it can be difficult to ascertain their true wishes, although the Mental Capacity Act and its Code of Practice oblige the relevant authorities (and others) to try. My mother could express the wish in the same sentence to return home, go back to her mother (dead for over half a century), go to get a flat with her sister, stay in the hospital/nursing home (depending on where she was at the time) or the golf club (which is where she sometimes thought she was).

    Your father will, of course, be different. But even if it can be shown that leaving his own home was against his wishes, from your posts he now appears to be happy where he is. Provided the LA can show that it has carried out an appropriate process, the decision will probably - almost certainly - stand. If such evidence was provided, I think there is a fair chance that your solicitor would advise you at the disclosure of evidence stage not to continue, or even to refuse to do so (which, if he perceives or is advised by Counsel that there is no reasonable chance of success, he is ethically able to do).

    The other issue appears to be your concerns over the Power of Attorney (presumably for property and welfare). Given the power of Local Authoriities to charge for services, your father's apparent inability to live in his own home, then it is clear he no longer requires it. PoA holders are required to act in the best interests of the person on whose behalf they hold PoA. If your father is unlikely to return to his home, then it is probably a liability in financial terms rather than an asset, and liquidating (selling) the asset is probably in his best (financial) interest. The PoA holder has to administer the assets for your father's benefit and provide reports to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). If you suspect wrongdoing, then by all means report it, but the act of selling the house is not, of itself, wrongdoing. They do not have the power to reverse a decision, but can ask the Court of Protection to remove or replace an attorney, as can you. Nothing you have written in the thread referred to suggest to me that there would be grounds for removing the present PoA holders. There may of course be such grounds that you have not revealed, but it would not ordinarily be appropriate to share these in open forum.

    If you have more general concerns about your father's welfare, then you can raise a safeguarding concern with the Local Authority. There is insufficient evidence in your posts to make any comment on the viability of this as a course of action.

    Finally you seem convinced that your siblings are "controlling" your father. I wonder how they see you? You state explicitly in the thread that there was inter-sibling aggression and are honest enough to admit that some of that was yours. This comes accross very strongly in the posts and correspondence you quote, and if I can see it, so will the people to whom you were writing. If you wish to take things further you will need greater insight and self-criticism and a calmer tone. One of the keys to success in this situation is to accept the possibility that you may not be right on every point. You also seem to have little understanding of the legal processes that were actually going on, the roles of agencies and the law. Jaycee 23 put it very gently to you that you needed to be calmer. I'd endorse that here.

    W
     
  14. min88cat

    min88cat Registered User

    Apr 6, 2010
    581
    Well done Wirralson on getting to the bottom (hopefully) of the OP's query. If there were medals given for patience, investigation and sound reasoning, I would award it to you now!!!
    I was really having trouble understanding what the problems were, that link to the original post helped a huge amount.

    I'm sure all that you have written above will be of great use to the OP and others! I too hope he manages to remain calm.
     
  15. abadam

    abadam Registered User

    May 28, 2013
    29
    #15 abadam, Jan 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
    Thanks for that Wirralson,
    Things are different from how you assume them to have been.There has been a steep learning curve as I have said throughout.I'm as mad as hell but try to confine myself in rational,informed/ready-to-be informed discussion.
    My dad was removed from his home to live with a sibling.There are things even I find it difficult to say.
    There was no due process.All the things you assume[I can feel the rushing of blood] did not take place,from the social services point of view-
    no enabling decision-making,
    providing the means to optimise communication
    Placing the person at the centre of the decision-making
    Acting in the person's best interests and according to their wishes
    Providing an advocate,
    the origins of the EPAs were very dubious in terms of dad's capacity-no medical assessment,no taking into account that he had dementia,the solicitor wasn't told, and undue influence.
    FYI his home was put on the market 5 weeks after he had been removed and the EPAs had not been registered.
    My wife and I informed the Social services that we would look after dad while the options of hiring carers to provide us with respite was explored developed.We were not informed of this option.
    This is now denied.
    My father was subsequently removed with no reference to his wishes or best interest on the pretext of giving my wife and I a break,i.e.,he was not told he was going to live there,nor was he given any option.
    Would your blood not boil,wirralson?
    Communication with dad is quite difficult-he wanders and gets stuck,but at christmas he said to me'I have no big plans[for going home]'and asked why he said'it's too complicated'.
    There is a pile of other stuff,like an advocate was denied entry to see him on threat of trespass.
    My father is a quiet man,and really responds to care,effort and patience,and as I have had it confirmed, being spoken to as a person through the medium of the necessary convolutions.
    He is nowhere near being a sectionable person.
    I love my father and want what he wants.
    When you say that it takes litigation to advance 'the cause',you are dramatically limiting access to a satisfactory resolution for huge numbers of people who can not afford litigation,and saying that all the oversight,regulatory bodies,mental capacity/health policy means nothing,because they are empty words.
    FYI,the EPAs were withdrawn and associated murkiness disappeared.
    I'm still hoping that a statutory body is concerned by these issues,has the powers to investigate and put a major wrong clustered in secondary wrongs,right.
     
  16. Wirralson

    Wirralson Account Closed

    May 30, 2012
    661
    #16 Wirralson, Jan 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
    Duplicated post
     
  17. Wirralson

    Wirralson Account Closed

    May 30, 2012
    661
    #17 Wirralson, Jan 29, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2015
    Abadam

    Dealing with your points. No, my blood would not boil. I don't regard my relatives particularly highly, but I long ago learned not to be concerned about them, and there are plenty of things in my parents' extended families about which to be concerned. That's me - you're you, and you're entitled to get angry. I can only comment on what you post. But what you've posted here is so different from the earlier thread that I have some difficulty in regarding you as a wholly reliable narrator.

    Your previous post there was a Power of Attorney held by your sibling(s), which implied one had been registered. Now you say the EPA is not registered. Which is it? Make up your mind. If it ahs not been registered, and your father has no mental capacity, then the Office of the Public Guardian will investigate. If you believe there is criminal activity (fraud), then go to the police.

    You state "the origins of the EPAs were very dubious in terms of dad's capacity-no medical assessment,no taking into account that he had dementia,the solicitor wasn't told, and undue influence". There are other threads on here where individuals have challenged these in the Courts. And despite your views that random statutory bodies to investigate whatever grievance you feel you have, only the Courts have the power to intervene in such cases. This looks to be within the powers of the Court of protection under Section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Have you actually asked the Office of the Public Guardian (I assume you are in England) to investigate? And stated the events in a clear, chronological order, with dates, and evidence of your concerns? Or have you written in the same way as you have posted here? If the latter, then I am afraid you will have a lot of difficulty, simply because your writing style is so hard to understand.

    BTW - I never said you father was sectionable - I was referring to the contrast between my mother's wishes and the outcome.

    Turning to your concerns about the Local Authority, you mention:

    No enabling decision-making,
    Providing the means to optimise communication
    Placing the person at the centre of the decision-making
    Acting in the person's best interests and according to their wishes
    Providing an advocate


    Let's look at what this actually means. "Enabling decision-making" is a wonderful piece of rhetoric, but in practice it can have two meanings (accoridng whether "enabling" is a verb or a qualifier. One simply means that it helps decision taking to take place, the other is the the form of decisions are "enablers" to allow the individual's wishes to be taken into account. Unfortunately, in dementia the choices are often stark: if your father couldn't reliably live alone then the choices are:


    1. Provide an additional care package sufficent to enable him to continue living with assistance in his own home.

    2. Move him to another home where he can live with supported care.

    3. Residential care.​

    You stated in the earlier thread that you and your wife could not cope after 4 months, so option 1 would be out of the question as a long-term solution. That leaves Options 2 & 3. You state that your wife and yourself ahd offered to care for your father, while other options were explored, but "this is now denied". By whom? Your siblings? The LA? Is there correspondence documenting this? But if you had stated you were unable to cope, then the LA would treat this as an emergency issue, and would probably not consider any further option involving you as care. Carer breakdown is something of a "red flag" issue. If you wish to know what judgments they reached about you, make a Subject Access Request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 of them for data about you (and your wife can do the same).

    The use of "white lies" to get people to move, is, I am afraid, a part of dealing with dementia. My father had something of Sunday-School mentality about telling lies to my mother once she got dementia. (He was quite happy to do so before she was diagnosed!) I learned quickly, as others on here have posted, that lying by omission (so as not to contradict my mother's assumptions within her dementia world) and sometimes deliberately, was necessary for her peace of mind. No, doesn't make my blood boil. For me it's a part of life and interpersonal skills and caring.

    OK, let's look at:

    "Providing means to optimise communication"

    What do you think the LA should have done that they did not do? Usually you get one meeting if you are lucky, a handfull of telephone calls and a letter or two. They are arranging a placement, not holding a nuclear disarmament summit.

    Let's turn to:

    "Placing the person at the centre of the decision-making" and "
    Acting in the person's best interests and according to their wishes "

    Once the decsion had been reached that your father could not live unsupported, and you had stated you could not continue, then your father's wishes become (as I have stated earlier) secondary to the practical realities of making care arrangements. That's all it means. These aren't worthless statements, but they aren't the massively significant dictators of all action as you seem to assume. And breach of them isn't automatically maladministration.

    An Indepednent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) isn't always needed in such cases. See the official documentation here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/365629/making-decisions-opg606-1207.pdf

    As your father had family (including you) to represent him the LA may have felt that the (scarce) time of an IMCA wasn't warranted, and didn't pursue the issue when access was denied. Trespass is a tort, so I find it a bit hard to believe the threat of trespass was taken seriously - it isn't remotely credible as a threat. But the IMCA has no power of entry in law.

    If you believe there has been maladministration, then the LGO is the way to go. My hunch is still that there hasn't been.

    So the conclusion is simple. In your father's case, you have four simple options, and can pursue any or all of them.


    A. For the EPA issue(s) write a clear account with documented evidence to the Office of the Public Guardian and/or police.

    B. For the LA's action exhaust its complaints procedure and then try the LGO.

    C. Raise a Safeguarding concern with your LA, cc the police (who will see all Safguarding cases anyway.

    D. Seek legal advice.



    Have you done any of them? If you do, I would suggest you will need to marshal your case in a clearer manner than you have done here.

    Finally, you accuse me of limiting action. What do you suggest as an alternative to private legal rights? That random statuory agencies should investigate whatever you want? They cannot be a substitute for private rights. Are you saying you can't afford £200 for an hour's legal advice when you were prepared to be carer (whcih is not cost-free)?

    W
     
  18. abadam

    abadam Registered User

    May 28, 2013
    29
    Thanks,Wirralson.
     
  19. Wirralson

    Wirralson Account Closed

    May 30, 2012
    661
    Thanks for the compliment. However, in practice the options are pretty simple, and the relevant information is in the public domain.
     
  20. Norfolkgirl

    Norfolkgirl Account Closed

    Jul 18, 2012
    514
    Do let us know the outcome of any action you end up taking, especially if you do eventually find a public body/agency willing and able to help. It is important for us all on this site to learn from other carers' experiences so that we can avoid the pitfalls ourselves.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.