At 08.24 this morning, I had a call from a social worker I have never heard of before called Kate and she did not say what she wanted and we were cut off in no time. No questions or discussions were voiced in terms of what she wanted. When tried to telephone back I received no answer so I got someone else to contact her in my household who was witness to her original call. So 08.31 was the time of the outgoing call and what was disturbing is that Kate did not say what she wanted and made out that it was ME who telephoned her and that she was responding to my call? Never heard of this person but have kept her phone number nonetheless.
In the circumstances and certainly bearing in mind our past experience of social workers under MH, it is very alarming to get a call from someone who claims to be a social worker, who makes out I contacted her in the first place which is not true and then denies phoning me in the first place when I was getting someone else to return the call to find out what she wanted.
Anyway, there may be some relevance to all of this and that awaits to be seen but from a family who have been bullied left right and centre by social services and bearing in mind current situation as regards Elizabeth and everything to do with this it is MOST ALARMING.
All I mentioned was that Elizabeth had been deprived a CTR (Community Treatment Review) and about some safeguarding issues re some of the care that had been provided under private sector most recently.
Anyway absolutely nothing else was discussed about anything to do with Elizabeth’s current situation and the social worker did not ask me one single question and this was all witnessed.
Anybody who has had brutal dealings with social workers who are supposed to help would understand why I am concerned.
Elizabeth has twice now been sectioned unlawfully under Barnet Enfield and Haringey MH Trust.
When a section comes to an end, a social worker is supposed to consult with the Nearest Relative. So we have no idea what on earth Kate B wanted.
Like I say two phone calls:
Her incoming call at 08.24 am – 1 minute
Outgoing call by witness at 08.31 am – 5 minutes.
During the latter call the witness requested to know why she was calling and she said “I am calling to return the call from SB”.
THAT IS NOT TRUE SO WHAT DID KATE WANT? For the record Kate did not say what she wanted.
TW v LB Enfield  EWHC 1180 (QB),  MHLO 59 The applicant argued that her nearest relative ought to have been consulted (under s11 ) before her s3 detention: she required leave of the High Court under s139 (2) to bring a claim against the local authority, and sought a declaration of incompatibility.
Unfortunately Elizabeth has been unlawfully detained twice and as a Litigant in Person with me acting as a McKenzie Friend Elizabeth challenged her unlawful section of 16 hours.
Elizabeth received a cheque for just £1 in compensation.
More recently Elizabeth was detained unlawfully for about 5 days – She has not yet challenged this but out of interest surely the compensation should amount to MORE than just £1. I will find out and let you know.
However this shows just how bad things are in terms of human rights for vulnerable people under MH care and their families.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal in the case of Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, confirming that the principles set down in the immigration detention context in Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 12 (Lumba) and Kambadzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 23 (Kambadzi) also apply to claims for false imprisonment/breach of Article 5 ECHR …
Where are the human rights in the UK?
It is disgusting in my opinion that vulnerable people can be treated in such a way in the UK whereas anyone else would have stood more chance of justice if they were unlawfully detained.
Weightmans Solicitors were involved in the case of unlawful detention and the compensation of £1 – if errors are made this shows how unaccountable things are and that the law is not there to protect the weak and vulnerable.
Social workers should be there to help but that is not the case as I have seen from safeguarding where Trust and Council were forced to apologise a while back and also when they wish to force return someone to a care home they happen to be paying for in order to deprive liberty and enforce a CTO which only strengthens a team’s scope to bully with threat of recall. CTOs should be abolished. The only social workers in Enfield who have been kind were those that were involved in my father’s care from the Adults Division. There were two exceptional social workers but from our experience there are some who give everyone a bad name and that applies to doctors and nurses too.
This is when they can become nasty. My blog explains how they can deprive medication to force return to a care home rated good by CQC where Elizabeth had no food at the weekend.
I wish to praise the COURT OF PROTECTION for their decision and their support.
It was FOUR days not two days without the drug. To think an entire team of professionals stuck together and deprived the drug Clozapine and I made every effort to get it despite the fact I was not happy with the “treatment”.
We had two weeks of hell with social services coming in to the family home and reporting for court purposes and trying to carry out a capacity assessment in front of my carers who were all horrified.
Here is a further example of the “care” my daughter has received:
From Psychiatrist ID To LO and EJ cc EA
30.05.2014 at 17.05
Subject Elizabeth Bevis
“A was advised by the HTT that EB would not be available to meet us this afternoon but as planned we attended her home.
We were advised by a man who said he was a lodger that EB doesn’t seem to be at home. We therefore did not have the opportunity to carry out the assessment.”
Regards ID Consultant Psychiatrist Enfield Community Rehab Team 65C Park Avenue Bush Hill Park Enfield EN1 2HL
I received a call from Elizabeth and her sister whilst I was at work. Elizabeth’s sister said they were hiding in a cupboard and that they were terrified and that they had asked my lodger at the time to say they were out as Elizabeth did not want to see them and neither did her sister.
“From LO sent 30 May 2014 at 17.27
to ID, JE and EA
Subject Elizabeth Bevis
Thanks for informing me I have spoken to A about this I will relate the issue with the legal team.
Community Rehab Team Manager /AMHP