Abusive Manager in Surrey

Abusive Manager in Surrey

Reading the text and clicking on the links for further information and evidence will give you a complete overall picture of a massive scandal involving not only a nursing home in Surrey, its manager and owner but, worst of all, all governmental bodies in place to safeguard vulnerable citizens in this country. If you have received this link from me and find yourself in a professional position of responsiblity you will have a duty to act on this information. If you are  ‘only’ a member of the public you still better do something. First, please reflect on the possiblity that you might one day find yourself in one of these beds. Rise your voice before it is too late. After all, neither the ‘Care Quality’ Commission, social services, Nursing and Midwifery Council nor the Department of Health are likely to come to your resque.

This ongoing story started with serious complaints against an abusively negligent manager in a nursing home in Surrey. One would think that the conduct of such a person – on the background of  the following extremely well documented course of events – should have been looked into most carefully by the public control system set up to safeguard vulnerable adults in this country (CQC, social services, NMC, DoH), but you will soon find out it wasn’t – and that they all fiercely continue to obstruct any attempt to have this scandal properly and independently investigated.

We might also think that vulnerable people’s interests are thoroughly safeguarded and protected with help of the numerous rules and regulations which are in place. Unfortunately, theory and daily life in this area, as in many others, are two completely different matters – though most people are happily unaware of this tragic fact. Despite an extremely serious and thorough complaint (as my MP expressed it in a letter to Secretary of State Andrew Lansley: ‘it is important to point out that many of the allegations Mr Petersson has made amount to criminal negligence allegations, and arguably manslaughter”.   Cryers letter to Lansley 12092011  ), supported by extensive documentation and evidence (all presented in redacted versions in the following), a senior person in this system is still at large and in post as usual – all this very much as result of active support from those who rightfully should have protected vulnerable people from her activities.

Yes, instead of doing the job British people expect these public officials to do, they chose – by refusing to investigate in any serious way – to stand by her side. The British people pay with their taxes for this kind of ‘protection’ of their vulnerable loved ones and ultimately one day themselves. Therefore they have a right to know what is going on behind their backs. After having read this, you will be in possession of this knowledge. As I said before, if you then find yourself in any kind of responsible position – as politician or public servant – you will have a responsibility to act accordingly. After all, the one who knows but do nothing (or worse, try with all means to stop any inquiry into this scandal) will be equally responsible as the perpetrator. After reading this – and if you have actively got the link from me you will be expected to – there will be no excuses. I will not rest until the public is guaranteed that the truth about this covering up will be laid open, and all responsible, not only the negligent manager and home owner but also public officials who did and continue to do their utmost to protect them, will face the consequences of their actions (or lack of).
On the different pages here I present original documents and e-mails concerning this case. All documents in this growing scandal are redacted to protect individuals (also those accused of wrong-doing). Let me start with an email to CQC:  email from John Blog  This was my first attempt to draw the authorities attention to what was going on at the home in Surrey where I at the time had worked for over two years. All the documented grave concerns, Entries as remembered  which should have led the inspector to me (had she ever bothered to look for the books), were to be found in these communication books. The reason for the email at this date was that it was well known that there was an ‘unannounced’ inspection on its way. The tidying up at the home had gone on for months. Even a special clerk had been employed for two-three  months in order to tidy up the book keeping… before the inspector would ‘unexpectedly’ turn up. With the email I intended to lead her to me. The manager and  home owner were evidently worried about all documented concerns in this book and had removed it (and its predecessor) to avoid embarrassment and enquiries. Anybody seriously concerned about the well-being of these residents and who would read these books would obviously rush to contact me, as I was the main contributor. Going openly to the CQC would have meant the sack, but I couldn’t help if it was the other way around, could I?
Unfortunately, nothing came out of this attempt to alert the authorities. The book was not looked for. After the inspection had taken place I found it in exactly the same position on the shelf as I had left it for her to find. However, the whistle blowing email was acknowledged in the report that followed the visit – though it was declared that no evidence had been found…. One wonder, what evidence she might have thought of. And, how could she look for evidence of something she didn’t know the existence of, because she hadn’t been bothered to use what was presented? I see this failure to act as a serious, indefensible, deliberate covering up meant to protect the manager. I have no idea what the reason behind should be. From this point on it is clear that both CQC and (this is documented by themselves) also the social services are deeply involved and part of the following covering ups.

As the inspector did not look for this book (and the other containing more information) I had no other choice than resign and write a formal complaint. I could not defend remaining in a post where I, if I was doing nothing to alert the authorities, would make myself equally responsible of negligence. As at this stage both social services and CQC had failed to act on this substantial material (that had been presented to them) I directed the complaint to Secretary of State Andy Burnham at the Department of Health, asking for an investigation into not only the failures of the manager and home owner but social services and CQC as well (and in particular the involved inspector) http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/care-homes/abusive-manager-in-surrey/my-complaint/  (as it is presented in a redacted version in my book ABUSE UK.   

You now know the extremely serious nature of my concerns. So what kind of a person are we talking about? Who is it that I regard as so irresponsible that she should not be allowed to act as a lead nurse and manager at a nursing home dealing with vulnerable, defenceless elderly and disabled? The link here Professional-standards-of-a-leader-Report-200409-  will give you another opportunity to get to know this person, who at the time I wrote this early report about her to the then manager of the home acted as the ‘head of nursing’ (responsible for the nursing part in the nursing home). After this report was written this person took over the post of the manager herself – after a further complaint had been made against her to the home owner by the then manager, and after this report had been disregarded by the owner. I am in position of a copy of this report as well, but, in respect of the author (the former manager who, as a direct result of her complaint, finally had to leave herself), I will refrain from more than quoting this comment about her, at that time, ‘head of care’: ‘I regret that I cannot continue to deal with this form of bullying, either directly or towards members of staff.’ The entire complaint I will only hand over once an independent inquiry asks me for it. However, I can assure anybody: the owner of the home is already at this early stage given extensive information about the person she shortly after promoted to manager. Already from this moment, long before my above mentioned email, it seems the owner and the new manager start to go hand in hand.

No surprise, nothing came out of my complaint to the minister of health, Secretary of State Andy Burnham. I had learned my lesson before,  http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/care-homes/kingston-upon-thames/  so I was prepared: whistle blowing is, of course, officially supported and encouraged, but there is no support (rather the opposite) for those who actually take the step and speak out. No, I hadn’t expected anything really to happen. But, the way this complaint from now on was handled, baffled even me. The DoH sent it back to the very same inspector I accused of negligence (!); she passed it on to the social services (whom I had also complained about in the very same complaint….) and they passed it to the owner (whom I also had complained about for negligence to act on numerous reports and written entries about the head of care/manager’s mismanagement and neglect….) to investigate (!). The owner finally ‘investigated’ my complaint on behalf of the social services. In this work she was helped by the manager (!!!) who herself ‘investigated’ the most serious complaints against herself, all those regarding extreme neglect in individual, named cases (But the result of her ‘investigation’ of herself remains secret). Indeed a bizarre development and course of action. Yes, even I was surprised. Following that I have persistently tried to get hold of these ‘investigation’ reports. But, obviously given the embarrassing status of these documents, this has proved to be indeed very difficult. Nobody would voluntarily let me have a look at what they had produced. However, I was constantly reassured that everything was now in safe hands…. and I was ‘thanked for my concerns’. Have we heard this before?

Knowing that the social services and CQC had their own negligence to protect and cover up and that it would all stop with that, I referred the manager to the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council), presenting them with the same complaint and asking them to investigate her fitness to practise. This proved just as difficult. There was no interest from their side to do what they are set up to do – investigate nurses’ and midwifes’ fitness to practise in a safe and professional manner. No, it was all to no avail, so far all attempts to force an investigation/inquiry into these serious allegations have been fruitless. It seems as if all those involved, those who would have the power to start a proper investigation also have an interest in keeping it all under a lid…. What a fierce resistance one faces when asking for a matter like this to be (nothing more, nothing less than just) properly and seriously investigated you will realise after having read the prepared ‘investigation’ documents. These were finally, following fierce resistance, released to my MP John Cryer – after my own attempts had been fruitless and he in the end had had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to force access. Their concerns regarding the release of their own findings can be sensed in this letter:  Reply Surrey Freedom of Information request 150311.  When those attempts finally failed, they tried to satisfy the MP (and ultimately me) with this:   ‘Investigation’ result given on 26.04.2011.  followed by the Home owners own ‘investigation’.

As Mr Cryer – realising the level of ‘investigation’ – insisted on something more credible MP letter to Surrey Council 080611 they tried to impress with a weighty bunch of paper – all minutes from a number of safe guarding meetings in which mostly identical, useless information about the alleged  present situation was repeated over and over again to make it look impressive and thorough. I will not publish these papers here. The content is ever repeating statements of the same, basically that everything is now fine and that I, who was never interviewed, had put forward false accusation against the home manager. This manager and the owner of the home were, as far as can be interpreted from the redacted papers, present throughout many of the meetings and it is clear, from the tone of the minutes, that they became more and more ‘friendly’ with the public servants.  Anybody reading these documents would realise it was ‘them’ all against ‘him’, and ‘he’ (I) was never given a chance to speak…. If you wish to, are allowed to and can be bothered to spend time on endless repetitions of irrelevant observations, I will let you read all that yourself. Anyway, the following was my (very) short response to these so called investigations. It was written as help to my MP. On request I will of course go into details – though it is difficult to write a serious response to complete fabrications  My response to both investigations.

If you at this point would be interested in more background to the person making such arbitrary decisions far above her capacity and legal authority (while well protected by the governmental watch dogs) you could have a look at following which are connected to the complaint and give further details about what we talk about. First a story about unbelievable disrespect for other people’s road safety.  http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/care-homes/abusive-manager-in-surrey/a-wreck-of-a-car/  For months this company used a wreck of a car to transport people to and from work. The home is located in a rural area and no ordinary staff would have their own transport. As you will have seen now: the head of care later manager in this case took up on herself the role of writing a ‘risk assessment on a car’s road safety – an unbelievable lack of insight into her own capability, responsibility and professional boundaries. Thanks to sheer luck no fatal accident happened. We cannot thank the management of this home or its owner for that.

This was no sole incident, though the head of nursing/later manager this time didn’t even keep to nursing – but adventured into assessing car safety(!). There were numerous incidents of, to say it mildly, shocking decisions by this person, who is still there doing the same job as usual: Let’s have a look at the case with the gentleman who was condemned to no treatment (mentioned in the complaint). The following complaint, written by a senior nurse at the home, further documents the consequences the frequent arbitrary rulings of the then head of care (later manager) had on the life and safety of this man.  Nurse G grievance.   The report shows the serious consequences of the manager’s self imposed rules and regulations on him. He should not be transferred to hospitals or be given life-prolonging treatment, that was the instruction. The report further corroborates my claims and both the report and the witness have been available all the time for any interested investigator of my subsequent complaint to the Department of Health. Unfortunately, nobody was interested. This man suffered due to extreme negligence, erratic decision making and unlawful rules and regulations instituted by a person without any authority to place herself as ruler over life and death. He was an intellectual with unimpaired mental capacity, but he was never asked for his opinion about his own life. While he was meticulously studying professional text books in his room, the head of care (later manager) arbitrarily and single-handedly signed him of as not worthy of hospitalisation (with no exemptions) and/or resuscitation.

The author of this report has now left the home. During her year-long tenure there she was herself a constant victim of bullying by the head of nursing. She had to endure that, as she was bound to the company for her work permit. That is nothing unusual, but common in the business: Nurses must toe the line by their employer – if they do not, they risk being sent out of the country. As soon as this nurse (after five years) got her permanent visa she left this home.  As we are with this man it is interesting to note that in the social services report mentioned above (the pile of minutes released to the public after repeated request by my MP) all names of council staff, the home owner and the accused manager were redacted to protect their identity (bad conscience to be involved in this?) – but this man’s full name and profession is there… (most likely just another sign of complete incompetence and carelessness rather than malice).

As CQC, social services and also DoH obviously had no intention to investigate my complaint I turned, as mentioned above, to the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council), the public body under which all qualified nurses must belong in order to practise. Working as a nurse without being registered by NMC is a criminal offence on par with working as a doctor without being registered by the GMC. I asked NMC to investigate the manager’s fitness to practise and presented them with the detailed complaint. This turned out to be as fruitless as other attempts to have this matter looked at. However, why also they chose to protect the manager I do not know. The email trail on http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/care-homes/abusive-manager-in-surrey/letters-and-e-mails/ will in detail show how they did their best not to act.

NMC’s actions are, however, even more remarkable. They actually started an investigation. Upon my referral they sent a letter to the owner of the home for a comment – that means they started the investigation into the nurse/manager’s fitness to practise. They received no reply. Three months later I reminded them (interesting that such a reminder should be necessary…); they themselves sent a reminder to the owner. Still no answer. Nine months after I had reported her and after they had started the ‘investigation’ – and again after a new reminder from my side – they came back to me saying that her registration had lapsed  NMC declare not on the register . Hence they had no longer jurisdiction to continue with the ‘investigation’, they stated… Interesting while she must have signed Nop nurse wish registration to lapse form . As a registered person one cannot just leave, if being ‘aware of any matter which could give rise to allegation against’ oneself. I would consider that to be fulfilled if one actually is under investigation…. No matter what, they let her leave and hereby stop what was already started. Reason for that I do not know, but I would be interested in knowing. I wrote to the CEO of NMC to ask for a comment. email to Head of NMC following lapse of registration. Here I also informed them that she was in post as usual doing the same job supervising her nursing staff. NMC was not interested in that. The email trail is to be found at the above mentioned site. They are now closing ranks. A request for the date of the lapse of registration is refused, referring to the data protection act. It is claimed that such a date is confidential information. Only registered members were shown on NMC’s website it was stated. If somebody had left – had her/his registration lapsed – the person would not be there. They called that private information that needs to be protected. Therefore, they could confirm that the manager was no longer registered, but the date of her leaving the register was protected.  Interesting. At this time I had myself let my own registration lapse, as I, due to having blown the whistle, had no chance of ever working as a nurse again and, understandably, wanted to save the annual fee – as I have no income. In order to do so I had filled in the above mentioned form, declaring that I was not aware of any allegations against me (and I truthfully wasn’t), and returned it to the NMC. As my date has lapsed and I have received no reminder I have no reason to believe that they have not received this form. However, interestingly enough, as late as 1.5.2012 (see below) all my details are still there on their website….

Yes, while the NMC in the following would goes to great lengths to avoid telling me the date of the manager’s lapse of registration  ( Dickon refuses to give the date 220911 )   Dickons letter of 220911 FoI request  they have my date shown on their own website all along – though also I am no longer on the register….  My registration shown on 26.4.12 and 1.5.12  I have no problems with that; I have no secrets, but I wonder why? Yes, why was it that my data was still on their website while they tried so hard to avoid telling me the crucial date of the manager’s leaving of the register? Could it have something with jurisdiction over me or was it (again) pure incompetence. One could argue the first as they in the following month tried to start an investigation into my own fitness to practise… but I do not know. Anyway, several months had passed, close to a year after my complaint against the manager and the homeowner, before I was told that the latter had handed in a contra accusation against me Home owners complaint against me. written immediately after they had received mine from the DoH.  Further to that it is interesting to read the best-mate sounding, undated letter written by the homeowner to ‘Hilda’ at NMC. Dear Hilda undated . I was now referred to investigation of my own fitness:  Referal to investigation commitee.  I was asked for a comment and complied with that request. A redacted version of my reply is to be found here:  http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/care-homes/abusive-manager-in-surrey/response-to-allegations-fitness-to-practise/  But, in order not to waste time, theirs or mine, I also asked them to confirm that they had jurisdiction over me. And, interestingly enough: they had jurisdiction to investigate me, they claimed yes NMC has jurisdiction . So it was: they had jurisdiction to investigate a person who was no longer registered, who had no job, no income, and who had no plans or hopes ever to work as a nurse again (solely because I would be dependent on a reference from the very same business I had complained about and that now complained about me). It was indeed interesting (or rather alarming): at the same time as they claimed not to have jurisdiction to investigate the manager, who was in post as usual, they had over me – who was not…. I questioned their jurisdiction (but offered to re-enter if that could help them get started, because I was interested in being given a chance to talk) but was ‘reassured they had this jurisdiction and that they would now instruct lawyers to investigate the allegations against me ( Panel decison ). It would take up to four months it was claimed. An idea regarding the credibility of the absurd collection of (my claim: totally fabricated, unfounded) allegations can be found in the following emails between me and the home owner about my handing in of resignation RESIGN email to home owner 050210 3.58 pm , Notice email to home owner 050210 2.27pm , Email to home owner 150210 . She claims I just disappeared, which clearly was a lie – among all the other claims. She also claims that I never told her about my concerns, but saved it for the book. There are written documents refuting that statement.   Report to home owner about manager Jan. 2010 . By the way, I wrote that report by hand because staff – also shift leaders as myself – were not allowed to use the computer in the office….

Even more clear: the complaint written by the previous manager before she was forced out and replaced by her own deputy (the one she complained about) shows that I desperately had tried to whistleblow to the owner. This report has already been mentioned above and can be presented upon request for any investigation. In that statement the home owner is told in details about my concerns with her (at the time) head of care. Following that I had a telephone conversation with the owner in which she dismissed my/our claims and concerns and claimed she alone made the decisions in her company.  A care assistant had an equal conversation with the owner with the same dismissive result. Worst of all allegations against me are those which are not only pure invention but also could be seen as deliberate libel and defamation.

This was in June 2011. Today is May 15 2012. Only yesterday I finally received a large parcel with paper copies from the investigation into my own fitness. Almost a year it would take for the lawyer/lawyers to get to finish their investigation. Haven’t read it all yet, only the letter that followed it in which I found the following: ‘recommends there is no case to answer with regard to the fitness to practise referral’. I presume they have now finally discovered that these (shot from the hip) allegations had no foundation – but were pure spin about not only things allegedly happening in the home owner’s own home but also in an INVENTED earlier work place where I allegedly should have misbehaved… There were numerous fabrications in the allegations fabricated about me, but, obviously, the investigating lawyer must have seen through most of it. For example this one: one of the owner’s written attacks on me concerns the following incident:  Aggressive incident report 14.11.09  An interesting U-turn it was. The immediate response from the owner family had been of support ( Night security which authenticity can be verified by staff working there at the time). However, it quickly turned to the opposite as soon as the owner must have realised the danger of losing customers. Following a telephone conversation in which she accused me of being responsible for the incident that night (clearly against better knowledge and testifying by her own staff  Transcript from report in handwriting 131109 ) an exchange of emails followed in which she calls me to a disciplinary meeting Call to disciplanary meeting for having challenged her on the phone and refused to be accused of misconduct. The email trail here shows that the owner knew of the concerns with the manager already at this early time – something she later vehemently refuses to admit email from home owner 241109 , email to home owner 251109 ,  Email to home owner 271109 , Email to home owner 271109 . Note, when being asked to bring the books to the meeting, she lost interest in disciplining me….

Let’s go back to the date of the manager’s lapse of registration: The FoI came down clearly on my side: Freedom of Information decision 090112. They declared that the information about when a  nurse had left the register had public interest and ordered it to be disclosed. They told Mr Pinto at the NMC to give me the date. He was given a time frame to comply. Those days expired and – only after being reminded by me and FoI – a short message came with the date.  Expired registration of manager  This date was 12 days after they sent a reminder to the owner, i.e. in the middle of the investigation (see email trail). Why didn’t they know? Why didn’t they check up on her details? Why did they let her registration lapse though she knew she was under investigation – against their own rules?   Nop nurse wish registration to lapse form   A further email asking those question was given on by Peter Pinto, Head of CEO’s office, to a complaint officer at NMC – though I hadn’t actually complained, I just wanted to know…. The answer was this, meant to close the case:  Admittance of incompetence. Peter Pinto had previously been happy to respond on behalf of the CEO. Now he had lost interest in responding to letters addressed to and challenging himself. The question couldn’t be answered, so no (to be taken seriously) answer.   There we are. They hope I might now go away and leave them in peace.

In the meantime my Labour MP, John Cryer, has tried his best to try and get his political colleagues at the Department of Health to act and start an independent investigation into this case.  Cryers letter to Lansley 12092011  letter from Minister Burstow MP 19.10,11. That has shown just as difficult as everything else. Junior Minister Mr Burstow (who had responded on the secretary of state’s behalf to my MP’s request for him to interfere personally) just accepted the social services ‘investigation’ (all what we already have dealt with) and ‘reassured Mr Cryer (and ultimately myself) that everything had been look into and everything was fine letter from Minister Burstow MP 19.10.2011.. .

Mr Cryer, determined that this should not be allowed to be covered up, looked up the MP whose constituency included the home and found out something important: the Tory MP for the area was not only a former nurse, but she was also junior minister in the Department of Health, a colleague to Mr Burstow. We now thought we might have a break through. But, no, this woman was not interested emails with MP Guildford. . Indeed asthonishing, the essence of her comment in this abuse case was that it would be better for ‘Mr Petersson to correspond with his own MP’. I.e. the message was: keep him busy until he goes away.

As the owner’s complaint about me (that was written as quick response to mine about the manager) finally was investigated (again: I am not on the register, am not working and, because of whistle blowing, I see no chance of ever getting back – still I was investigated for fitness to practise.. but the manager who works as usual, over her they ‘had no jurisdiction’ and stopped an investigation – that had started – immediately as she let her registration lapse…) now had been investigated by lawyers I was sent a letter with the result. Last summer they had said this investigation would take up to 4 months. As I received the lawyers’ finding, approximately 9 months had passed. It was due to problems with finding witnesses…. I was now given 28 days to respond to the lawyers report. The paper work I was sent consisted of roughly 870 pages of copies. The lawyers had come down with a recommendation that there was no case to anser, but it was now up to the panel to decide. I was recommended to find a lawyer in case they would continue the case against me. If that was decided at the upcoming meeting they would resist any attempt from my side to delay the case in order for me to find a lawyer and have him/her prepare my defence – with other words, it was unlikely anything more would be happening, but as it could I was better to be prepared. I, a person with no income, due to this, should pay for a lawyer ‘just in case’. They had spent 9 months on this and they would give me 28 days to respond. ON top of that, the lawyers had spent ‘only’ approximately 6 months on their investigation. According to the dates on the documents their report was with NMC in February. Another three monts it must have been in the NMC’s hands without them sending it on to me. I find this extremely disturbing, as if these people do their best to make it difficult for me, who is nothing but a whistle blower made fall guy. I would not need a lawyer to defend myself, as I cannot afford (to pay for) justice and because I am not afraid of them – afterall I am no longer a registered nurse and have no chance to become one again, being ‘guilty’ in their trial or not. So what can these people do to me? Take me off a register I am no on? Of course nothing more than they already have. Let me say a few words about the lawyer’s report: they had five ‘witnesses’ in mind. The three they managed to find were the owner of the home (the one who complained about me), the (this far well known) manager, a carer with whom I only had worked shortly and who later had been promoted to assistant in the managerial office. They had had two more in mind: the previous manager and another carer. These two they had not been able to track down, this though the previous manager was, since she left this post, manager in a nearby town (and claims she has not been approached), and this despite the carer was no further away than sending me a Face book message telling me she missed me as a colleague. In the home owner’s investigation about my complaint about the manager she had been used to say bad things about me as had the other carer. Now she ‘could not be found’… Five months these lawyers had spent on this investigation and these two witnesses (and what about all the others who would have been supporting me) were ‘not found’. In the statements of the tree remaining ‘witnesses’ there are a number of malicious, fabricated, libellous comments. I do not have the energy to redact all these pages in order to show it here, but to anybody with the right to see them they will be presented. Let me only mention two things: first, the manager claims to the investigating lawyers that she herself has OVER 30 years as a registered nurse. I have reason to dispute this and call her crediblity into clear doubt, and see what happened: emails with Pinto about registration of the manager  I leave that to yourself to think about. Second, the carer who had been giving a statement cannot have been interviewed. The lawyers have spent all this time and they have not even met in person the only ‘independent’ witness being heard. Or have they? If so, why do they repeateldy refer to this MAN in their report as ‘SHE’ and ‘HER’?

That’s where we are now. Two and a half years after I left this home it is all business as usual. Apart from the interest shown by my own MP there is no interest in this matter. I do wonder why? After all, I accused the manager of neglect that has led to extreme suffering and that has caused painful deaths. I accused the CQC and social services of serious negligence and mismanagement. I have accused the NMC of negligence in their duty to assure that all nurses are fit for their jobs and work according to the law and their profession’s rules of conduct. If I have been lying, why am I not being made responsible for that?

The frequent media stories about the abusive private care industry in this country continue to awake concern and horror. After each episode of ‘disclosure’, the dismay lasts for a day or two and thereafter it is all business as usual and it is all forgotten. This story shows in details the rot all the way up to the top of the system. My message is: without addressing what this really is about, there will never be a change for the better. Unfortunately, I am aware of that, it is easier and much less dangerous to exclusively blame a carer or two at the lowest rung of the hierarchy than to venture into having a look at the real underlying problems of a rotten industry. This way we have the system we deserve. However, as I said to start with, if I sent this link to you directly, and if you are in a position with power to act, then omission to do so will have to be seen as complicity. After all, vulnerable people suffer as a result of negligence and mismanagement as described here. They suffer because of the negligence of those paid by the taxpayers to supervise and regulate this area.

Update, 26 July 2012: after John Cryer’s (MP) new letter to Minister Burstow asking him to interfere, among other things trying to stress that  the Secretary of State “had voiced a great deal of support for ‘whistleblowers’ in recent months” one more nonsense reply arrived, at the end basically calling the whole issue an “individual employment dispute”…. But they “will continue to highlight the legal right for staff in the health and care sector to raise concerns about safety, malpractice or other wrongdoing without suffering any detriment.” How extremely ridiculous. Well, what would I have expected?

Update 4 December 2012: Yesterday I filed formal complaints to both Department of Health and the CQC for their handling of my original complaints, asked to do so by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

30.12.12  And this of course this far to no avail. CQC now consider it to be a “complicated” matter and will take their time to come back to be at some time in the new year….   The Department of Health simply didn’t respond to the recorded letter – no reply not even a recognition of receipt. Therefore this reminder on page 3 here, following the complaints: Formal Complaint to CQC and MoH 021212 redacted for website

8 January 2012. Still no confirmation from the complaint office at the Department of Health. My first complaint was sent recorded on 3.12.2012 and signed for  5:34:00:GMT 05/12/12 (still no confirmation). The second, sent on 2.1.2012 was signed for 5:30:00GMT 04/01/13 and still no confirmation. I will today send copies of receipt and the post office’s electronic proof of delivery to the Ombudsman.

14 January 2012. And then all of a sudden speedy action, but…. This explains: Redacted my response to DOH’s final decision

March: Reply from CQC. My response to this reply in my final letter to the Ombudsman. Redacted Letter to ombudsman 80213

Ombudsman decision 300413

(My short comment to this letter: I have no recollection I have ever used the word ‘outrage’, but I think it is an outrageous letter that speaks for itself. It is extremely patronising, and though they all the time knew I was a staff member they needed to consult lawyers and senior staff before they could dismiss me precicely for being that…  More under letters and emails)

8 March 2013: Formal complaint sent to Social Services in Guildford. Here my response to their first response:  Response to social services in Guildford 280313   And so it goes on and on….. Surrey reply 230413

Of course I am ‘reassured’ by that. Or am I?  The short was: My MP had asked me to ask the Ombudsman to look at the matter. They asked me for information; I wrote a new report outlining the case. All this time, despite all these documents which were already there, despite they very well knew all the time that I was a whistle blowing member of staff and not an affected patient, they let me do all this writing before they decided that I could not complain as I had not been authorised to do so by the (dead) residents and I was not myself a patient. As a whistle blowing member of staff I had no rights to have my complaint about these conditions, which had led to painful deaths, investigated. So much for whistle blowing. Thereafter my MP has offered to help with an appeal. I know this is pointless, will only cost taxpayers more money and will only result in the same. The Surbiton case shows the same. http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/care-homes/kingston-upon-thames/ombudsman/ But, one thing all this writing does: it makes a case like this getting older and older and in the end they all will get rid of me. I have asked John Cryer to bring this up politically. I have repeated this request after this final Ombudsman decision. Thereafter I have heard no more from John Cryer, MP. His Labour colleague Andy Burnham was the secretary of state for health at the time my original complaint was sent on, cascaded down from from DoH to the owner of the home and the manager I accuse of extreme neglect in office – for those to investigate and free themselves. But also Tory ministers of health have after the change of government been involved in this cover up – among them the MP for the constituency where the home is located, a former nurse who is also junior minister of health in Cameron’s government. Nobody is holding these people to account. There seems to be no political party that is interested. One day they might find themselves in one of these nursing home beds. One day they might find themselves with rotting bedsores into the bones. That day they might remember that they all did everything to get rid of me….

If you think this was a single case, you could continue to read this:  http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/care-homes/kingston-upon-thames/ XXX  and my book ABUSE UK http://176.32.230.52/larsgpetersson.com/books/abuse-uk-book/

contact address: lgp@gmx.co.uk or 07963431317