Today I attended a family meeting but not everyone was present for some reason.
I attended in person alongside Dr TG, ward nurse and “carer’s champion”.
I brought some papers which I will share with you. Elizabeth attended this meeting but it was distressing to us both to hear what they “the team” thought was best when it was decided totally against at the CTR back in Enfield where for the first time ever Elizabeth was listened to and she made it clear then and now that she did not wish to go to any locked rehab.
I arrived early and went straight to the ward. I had offered to take Elizabeth out to get her hair done but she said she was too tired. She had been asleep when I arrived and after some time came to join me in the foyer of the ward and meeting room. I noticed a member of staff standing outside and commented. I had thought that practise had ended by now – it is of no help to me or to Elizabeth to have someone standing there outside and surely due to staff shortages this is not good. It felt intrusive and pointless especially when they are not there to supervise external leave for up to six hours which is now the current entitlement, all home leave now stopped.
The meeting began at 3.00 pm and started off OK. One family member attended virtually. I was expecting to have news at this meeting as to plans discussed behind our backs at MDTs which we are not invited to.
Apparently staff have undergone the Oliver McGowan training programme but I do not know if this included the doctors or just nurses or management or just a select few because there clearly is no change/difference in attitude despite the training sadly.
After 19 months Elizabeth has shown no improvement whatsoever in this highly expensive acute ward facility where she has been held a virtual prisoner and treated as though she was on DoLs with phone and visiting restrictions and no leave whatsoever. It is hardly surprising that Elizabeth refers to herself as “I am not a person”. Staff now finally recognised and commented that this is now felt to be a wrong place for Elizabeth but it has taken them 19 months to reach this conclusion. Noone seems to understand some of Elizabeth’s comments except me. If you are treated in a humane manner by people and respected as a human being (not an object) that would be different but staff clearly do not understand the comments “I am not a person” and choose to ignore the fact Elizabeth constantly says she is autistic. This was discussed and there is no official fair assessment – plenty of screenings but I would like to see Elizabeth listened to and referred to Dr Simon Baron Cohen. They have chosen to divide the family in such a way I cant go into as much detail as I would like, you end up feeling like an object or criminal yourself and there is so much written to run you down behind your back. I know exactly how Elizabeth feels as I feel this way too. I feel that I have had extensive bullying under Enfield originally and then under Lincolnshire Partnership Trust. I did not want to complain at first and was keen to get on with a new team and make a fresh start but none of this has been possible. Around Xmas I would out that the S117 was still with my former area and thought that things had changed since then upon my request to transfer the care over. The former care coordinator HK from Enfield Community Rehab who goes back to 2014 CoP case of DoLs recommended the MHA assessment to LPFT and then steps in several AMHPs from this area who had acquired files full of inaccuracy that we tried to get changed before we left the area. Not only that, they tried to go down the capacity route but failed miserably. The drugs (Clopixol depot) was raised to enormous levels from 300mg fortnightly to 400mg weekly plus another 10mg in tablet form and according to other concerned patients frequent rapid tranquilisations and seclusion several times a week at night which did not even coincide with my visits that they could warrant the excuse of taking away her phone because the mother’s contact was the cause of distressed behaviour – a phone the family pay a contract on taken away and put in the locker. How nasty can you get and also S17 leave was totally deprived.
I did not think today’s meeting went well at all but this was all along their goal so I could see.
The subject came up on home leave, now cancelled. We had experienced one incident the day prior to seeing the crisis team which was a frequent occurrence on the ward where she would be placed in seclusion and rapidly tranquilised but in that state Elizabeth was totally inconsolable after so many months of being treated worse than a restricted prisoner. I mentioned that during this one incident at home all she was doing was rolling on and off the bed but she was shaking with tremors and screaming and that prompted me to ask for some adaptions to the annex – a detached bungalow I had built specially in the back garden especially for Elizabeth. Not a scrap of help from any area and I believe ENFIELD are responsible still for the S117. So who would be responsible for providing such adaptions. I would assume Enfield? What is needed are hand rails as Elizabeth can sometimes get dizzy so I had to be there to watch every time she had a shower. Another useful thing would be strong bed that does not come apart. Also some padding on the wall. I have given everything I have to Elizabeth and some these “professionals” at the top of Trust and Council earning more than the prime minister cannot be bothered to get in place simple little adaptions. How much is padding on the walls going to cost or a handrail in the wet room. Or how much is a strong bed going to cost? How much in comparison to a locked rehab in Lincoln? Elizabeth started to get very upset and snapped at Dr TG as well as others in the meeting. She was so distressed she had to go out to calm down. She clearly does not want to go to the locked rehab but feels she is being forced to go there and made it very clear that she has no intention of joining in/engaging. Locked rehabs are nothing new. They have not helped in any way in the past and this seems to be the trend to dump someone elsewhere when they decide after 19 months it is about time to move someone on. How disgraceful is that! Questions were fired at Elizabeth that she will not respond to unless on a 1-1 basis as she generally hates meetings. Going to a new place is traumatic for Elizabeth and she said clearly she was going nowhere except her room which has been her only sanctuary in that unsuitable hospital paid for by the ICB all this time and even then it is so noisy that she cannot stand it as she is placed close to the seclusion room where other patients are screaming and there are some very noisy patients on the ward and they recognised (as discussed) that she has sensory issues. I had asked for leave home as there are lovely celebrations going on in my new local area in the East Lindsay District but Elizabeth is not allowed to come home. I am therefore going to ask if it will be allowed for Elizabeth to stay with me at the wonderful Thomas Centre in Louth where unlike Lincolnshire Partnership Trust, people can be themselves without punishment and sanctions. After the incident at home where no-one was hurt and no-one was attacked – it was like watching someone have a fit, we see it as punishment that leave since then has been sanctioned but now is 6 hours a day.
During the 5 hours I had asked to be able to take Elizabeth to a wonderful place where there were horses. The last leave was on Sunday and in Spalding. Spalding is a lovely place and there is a garden centre “Baytree” and I took Elizabeth to see the baby owls. She was so thrilled. I have promised Elizabeth an owl when she comes home. Elizabeth has a cat but she can have other pets too if she comes home. We also went on the river taxi. No pets would be allowed under supported housing/living scheme or care home or locked rehab. It is animals Elizabeth responds to. Therefore a care farm would be much more suitable but these commissioners have no idea. These minor adaptions/provisions would cost next to nothing unlike a locked rehab which has been a complete and utter waste of money in the past and there have been several such facilities namely Cambian, Somerset Villa all of which failed to tackle any underlying issues and trauma just as Ash Villa have failed to do for so long without any psychological input. The question needs to be asked of the commissioners (now called the ICB) as to why there is only one qualified male psychologist and only one trainee female psychologist on the acute ward Ash Villa and why the commissioners have done absolutely nothing up until now with talk yet again of a locked rehab. None of these people are considering what Elizabeth wants and it is because none of them like me that I feel they want to put a wedge between myself and my daughter and keep her over an hour’s journey away making contact difficult. This is all because of non provision of any decent MH/LD/Autism care and facilities this side of Lincolnshire ie East Lindsay. I did not know things were so bad here but we had come from an area equally bad where we had experienced nothing but bullying and costly litigation which is top priority of the AMHP department rather than work together with family and to check their facts before they write a pack of lies that goes before courts.
Elizabeth had to go out of the room for a while to cool down and then re-entered and sat there for the rest of the meeting. They did not seem to understand that though Elizabeth had not got an official diagnosis this is what she is certain she has and I went back over past years to emphasise that autism traits were not immediately recognised. It was at secondary school that there were times when there were problems and avoidance of going to school and at the time I did not link this or suspect that this was anything possibly to do with autism. However now I have a much greater insight and none other than Elizabeth has given me this insight. Inspite of the many times she has mentioned “I’m autistic”, noone listens under Lincolnshire Partnership Trust – just the same with Enfield until I produced all the evidence going way back to get the NAS on board and Access Charity and unfortunately the NAS has turned their backs since Elizabeth has been sent to Ash Villa and of course it has been impossible for us to get through on the ward let alone anyone else when the phone was taken away for months on end with all blame put on me as a mother. Now I am told that in so many words that I should not be defensive in thinking everyone is against me but to be fair, I have read what has been said behind my back. Safeguarding was instigated against me on two wards based on “hearsay”. When I asked for safeguarding in the form of a S42 meeting this was not thought necessary despite a group of patients confronting me in the grounds outside Ash Villa stating their concerns. This is not a transparent open organisation like Sarah Connery CEO states. Far from it, it is a secretive organisation who have come to the decision of a locked rehab behind our backs and who have totally dismissed requests for the simple things that need to be done in the annex. I am not standing in the way of staff providing care and visiting. The premises are separate to my house. The high rise block of flats was discussed and how there was a murder outside and just round the corner and that Elizabeth was vulnerable there. We have moved to a lovely area and overlook the sea and beach, surrounded by wildlife reserves. Elizabeth appreciates what none of us appreciate looking at the birds in the sky, ordinary birds and seeing people out with their dogs and of course to be able to see her cat. None of this will be possible now thanks to LINCOLNSHIRE PARTNERSHIP TRUST and I cannot sure whether ENFIELD COMMUNITY REHAB attend and recommend what these strangers see as “best interest” for someone who has FULL CAPACITY and does not wish to go to a locked rehab called The Vale.This is provided at hundreds of thousands of pounds by the ICB who have dismissively failed to answer my complaint instead telling me to contact PHSO. The Chief Executive is called John Turner. He has passed my complaint already dismissed to someone called Sammi Vanplew. Then I have turned to Glen Garrod who is mentioned by the Tax Payers Alliance. I have already made it crystal clear to Mr Garrod that I am not happy that he passed my complaint to someone else to deal with. When you purposefully contact those at the top it is extremely disappointing that they cannot be bothered to answer and since I have had an unsatisfactory response from Mr Garrod I have had no choice but to write back to him and ask for a proper response. The rest including Ms Connery and Mr Turner I found it quicker to write just one email with referral paragraphs to each and every one of them.
Anyway, we get the feeling that such a move will take place soon and will cause Elizabeth huge distress as well as to her family who have gone out of their way to provide a nice living accommodation and it is not our fault that there is such failure here in Lincolnshire that only one side of Lincolnshire has care facilities re MH and nothing this side. Every week I visit. It is expensive to travel that far and it amounts to 3 hours per week roughly. This is simply not good enough for me because there needs to be places all over Lincolnshire where you can go to be assessed. Dr G said his treatment would not be any different if Elizabeth did have autism. So I then turned round and said that it was very clear on the discharge note that Elizabeth had “abnormal findings on a scan pointing to CNS” central nervous system. So what does this mean? which CNS condition does Elizabeth have. I then spoke about the scan. The scan had been refused by Elizabeth who is claustrophobic but I offered to take her myself for the scan and I was not allowed anywhere near Elizabeth when Dr Shahpasandy was the RC. This is the doctor who did research into the Limbic system and found that a patient had in fact got inflammation of the brain and so I asked for that research to be carried out on Elizabeth and he refused and to this day scans have been refused and so have neurologist appointments and endocrinologist appoints refused. This is to me highly negligent of any doctors to ignore and here are the doctors:
Dr Ismail
Dr Shahpasandy
Dr Kumar
Dr Islam
Dr Suleyman
and now Dr G ( I am not naming him fully as he is the only doctor out of all of these above who has allowed any leave). Dr Suleyman carried out a flawed capacity assessment not fit for purpose and not in line with the Masterman Lister case. Dr Shahpasandy refused his own research. Dr Ismail wrote some dreadful things in certain papers. Dr Islam refused to meet me and Dr Kumar did nothing. I think it was during his reign that I was excluded from the Management hearing and he raised the drugs enormously.
As for the SOAD – they are a complete and utter waste of time. They do not read the files or do anything properly. They do not have any understanding of the unique tests I had done at Liverpool university which should be mandatory.
Whilst I think the Oliver McGown training is a good thing I think in this area and Enfield they need a year’s training if not more because they are totally oblivious of the harm they are doing or else just complacent.
After the meeting Elizabeth just wanted to go back to her room. She said in front of everyone I am not leaving my room. I wish to die. This is the effect of months and months of so called restrictive imprisonment under Lincolnshire Partnership Trust and the facilities they provide are also not right for people who have sensory issues. Then again everyone needs to look at the ICB and what they provide with taxpayer’s money when I have seen my daughter go downhill rapidly and am quite disgusted.
So I am going to start off by sharing with you an email that was sent as a pre-protocol letter to the Trust at the time I was seriously considering taking out a human rights case which I had discussed with Elizabeth indepth who asked me to do so. Then they stopped the restrictions and started to allow time with the family so conscious of the money involved in taking out a High Court case I decided not to but I have not ruled this out in the future if necessary and I think what is needed is one case to cover every single vulnerable person incarcerated in the UK for years on end in unsuitable facilities used as a dumping ground by those who earn more than the prime minister who are failing the weak and vulnerable and need to be made accountable instead of passing the buck when they are asked to look into matters personally.
Pre Action Protocol Letter
“Dear Ms B and Mr H
“Under the provisions of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules I hereby give notice of intended proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 for violations of the Rights of Miss EB currently held under S3 MHA 1983 deprivation of liberty at Ash Villa, an institution under your management.
The cause of action is as follows:
Ms B has been detained in an acute admission facilities for 9-15 months (now 19 months) and has not made any appreciable improvement. She is not receiving appropriate treatment in such a facility because they are failing to take account of the inability to metabolise the drugs they insist on giving her (in spite of clear evidence they are not working).
This is causing her unnecessary suffering as she is being inflicted with all the ADR’s from the drugs with no efficacious benefit.
She is receiving no recognisable treatment for complex PTSD which her former RC Dr H Shapasandy acknowledged was part of her diagnosis. Therefore she is not receiving appropriate treatment. It can be strongly argued that she has not seen any improvement because she is being given inappropriate treatment that seems to have the sole purpose of restraining her rather than addressing the aetiology of her diagnosed condition.
This is in violation of her rights under Art 3. ECHR and represents inhumane and degrading treatment as in Slawomir Musial v Poland (2009) and Raffray Taddei v France (2010).
Incidentally the ECHR has ruled that whatever obstacles the patient may have put in front of the treatment team that did not dispense the state from its obligations to protect their human right to being protected from inhumane and degrading treatment, ClaES v Belgium (2013).
The failure to give her appropriate treatment for a condition she has been diagnosed as having creates a situation where she is subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment.
Deprivation of family rights is a consequence of this. They try to say she is dangerous but have done nothing to address that, apart from to subject her to close surveillance at all times.
Depriving her of rights to S17 leave to have visits in the garden is depriving her of rights to take pleasure in visits to see animals and birds, a pastime that would be undoubtedly therapeutic in itself. This represents an abuse of the detention criteria under Art 5(1) (e) ECHR and is cruel, unnecessary and oppresive, a further example of inhumane and degrading treatment.
Preventing her communicating with her family and friends by depriving her of her mobile phone is also not only a violation of Art 8 but extends to Art 3 inhumane and degrading treatment.
NHS patients are supposed to be allowed their phones and to have private conversations with family members.
I am bringing the action as Litigation Friend under the ruling in Re L (By his Next Friend GE) (1998) 3 aLL er 289, HL & HL v The United Kingdom (2004) 5th October. Since the removal of Ms Bevis’s mother as Section 26 MHA 1983 NR and your deliberate obstruction of an active litigation friend this detention has had no procedural safeguards.
It is not in accordance with procedure prescribed by law, in particular her recent capacity assessment was carried out contrary to the provisions of Section 4 MCA 2005.
Her maximum deprivation of liberty which extends to be being prevented from having private conversations and intimate family relationships with her mother is established on imprecise and structurally incorrect concepts of best interests and necessity and is in breach of her Art 8 ECHR rights and per se in breach of Art 5 (1) ECHR.
In the spirit of the overriding objective in Part One of the CPR I am willing to enter into discussion with you on the most appropriate way to proceed in Ms Bevis’s best interests.
If I hear nothing from you in 14 days from the receipt of this communication, litigation may commence without further notice.
Yours faithfully
REPLY FROM THE TRUSTS SOLICITORS BROWNE JACOBSON TO THE ABOVE:
Our Ref AW1L02/050021.39183
13 October 2022
As you will see from the above LB was appropriately detained and a First Tier Tribunal authorised the extended detention on 22.04.22. Section 6 (1) of the HRA provides that a public authority must act in a way compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Art 5 (1) of the ECHR provides that persons may be detained and deprived on their liberty if the detention is lawful and/or the person has unsound mind.
Under Surrey County Council v P (2014 the acid test is met. The detention is authorised by the lawful procedure and Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) therefore provides protection to the Trust against any civil liability or non-criminal and non-negligent acts done in connection with EB’s care or treatment.
The deprivation of liberty applicable to EB meets the authorisation under Sch A1 of the MCA.
The detention has always been lawful so the Art 5 rights are lawfully interfered with and protected.
The fact EB is detained under the MHA provides the Trust with the legal framework to authorise her detention including restricting access to the telephone/family/outdoors.
The Trust has complied with the MHA Code of Practice to provide treatment for EB’s mental disorder.
LEGAL \ 58035244c1
Causation
We deny there is any causation argument made out. You say that EB is not receiving appropriate treatment. This is wholly denied. If you intend to pursue this argument then please send medical evidence and clinical opinion to support your allegations.
The treatment is clinically appropriate and can be authorised under the MHA where treatment for mental disorder can be given even where there is no consent and this can include pharmacological restraint.
Please specify what financial loss you allege LB has suffered if you intend to pursue this matter.
Litigation Friend
We have not seen any evidence that EB has requested you to be her litigation friend. Please send such evidence if you intend to pursue this matter.
We therefore confirm that liability, causation and quantum are all disputed and your client will be put to strict proof if you continue with this claim.
We look forward to receiving confirmation that you will not be pursuing this claim
Yours faithfully
BROWNE JACOBSON LLP
Conclusion:
A very interesting read Browne Jacobson and all this information supplied yet you are not even sure that the writer is EB’s litigation friend and there had been a change in this but very useful information thank you for this Browne Jacobson.
Psychiatric Abuse UK 