LETTER FROM THE RT HON MARIA CAULFIELD AND SARAH CONNERY CEO OF LINCOLNSHIRE PARTNERSHIP TRUST VIA THE RT HON VICTORIA ATKINS MP.

Extracts of  Letter from Sarah Connery, CEO  Trust HQ, St Georges Long Leys Road, Lincoln  lN1 1FS

“This is a complex case involving ongoing and intersecting legal and complaints procedures.  There have been involvement from multiple organisations in managing this case including Care Quality Commission, Lincolnshire Police, Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board, Lincolnshire County Council’s Safeguarding and Legal Services, LPFT MHA and Legal Services Team in addition to the Patient Experience Team and Safeguarding Team.”

There is no complexity.  Elizabeth has somewhere to live and wanted to move in 2021.  She was living in a high rise block of flats without support.  A meeting was held with the CMHT before moving but treatment not continued through no fault of mine. She was being reduced off it due to discharge note stating “abnormal findings on scan” in any case.   Since October 2021 she was taken and imprisoned in 5 institutions with 10 doctors involved.   Treated like a restricted prisoner, no leave, restrictions on visitors, phone confiscated and family contact discouraged, this has been “care” under Lincolnshire Partnership Trust to date. Months of investigation by Public Guardian Office following malicious allegations of abuse by various professionals found in our favour.   With so many agencies involved you would think that something would have been done about this situation by now and that there would be an end in sight but the abuse continues with no end in sight.   There have been months of legal action against me as though I was a criminal at County Court with involvement of Lincolnshire County Council to achieve the goal of displacement of NR only for me to become NR again thereafter to another family member.  All along there was mention and threat of placement into care without any respect for my daughter’s wishes or that of her family. The little bungalow remains empty that could have provided happiness to my daughter in the right environment of the small community where I now live close to sea and wildlife reserves and peaceful unlike an acute ward.

Ms Connery mentions my blog and that I wrote 70 emails.   I don’t know where she gets that figure from –  as if I had time to write so many!  During many months of court proceedings against me I received an email from Ms Anita Lewin who held overall responsibility: it was not of best interest to respond to complaints.  LPFT have now set up an email address where I am supposed to write to but responses I have received are not related to my complaints which remain unanswered for the most part. I have had one letter after another banning me from visiting without any alternative arrangement in place. Ms Connery refers to “due to concerns from the patient’s MDT made on clinical grounds in line with MHA Code of Practice 2015 shouldn’t that be 1983? paragraph 11:14.  So here below is the MHA CODE OF PRACTICE 1983: – only part of 11:14 was mentioned – here is the rest:

Restrictions or Exclusion on Clinical Grounds

11.14	From time to time, a patient’s Responsible Clinician (Dr Waqqas Khokhar) may decide, after assessment and discussion with the MDT, that some visits could be detrimental to the safety or wellbeing of the patient, the visitor, other patients or staff on the ward.   In these circumstances, the Responsible Clinician may make special arrangements for the visit, impose reasonable conditions or, if necessary, exclude the visitor.   In any of these cases, the reasons for the restriction should be recorded and explained to the patient and the visitor, both orally and in writing (subject to the normal considerations of patient confidentiality). Wherever possible 24 hour notice should be given of this decision.     So from this it is in fact the Responsible Clinician’s decision but we have not had proper explanation re risks to others or patient???
Restriction Or Exclusion on Security Grounds
11.15	The behaviour of a particular visitor may be disruptive in the past, to the degree that exclusion from the hospital is necessary as a last resort.  Examples of such behaviour include:   Incitement to abscond   Smuggling of illicit drugs or alcohol into the hospital or unit   Transfer of potential weapons   Unacceptable aggression   Attempts by members of the media to gain unauthorised access. None of this applies
11.16	A decision to exclude a visitor on the grounds of their behaviour should be fully documented and explained to the patient orally and in writing.    Where possible and appropriate the reason for the decision should be communicated to the person being excluded (subject to the normal considerations of patient confidentiality and any overriding security concerns.  No this has not been done at all. What risks exactly and why to other patients and staff when I am not sitting in the lounge area but small visitors room elsewhere.

I would also point out that nothing was properly explained about the ban and no warning given.   Paragraph 11:14 was mentioned but not all of paragraph 11:14.   As you can see paragraph 11:14 states about making special provisions and explaining in full.  This was not done.  All we constantly hear is “it is an MDT decision”.   NO!  It is the decision of the Responsible  Clinician who is Dr Waqqas Khokhar.  Everyone else on the ward is dutifully acting upon instructions that are in total breach of the law and their own Code of Conduct.  It is astonishing why no one raises a hand to question what is going on as it is clearly detrimental to the patient and not conducive to her recovery. Elizabeth has even got upset by staff sitting there taking constant notes (no doubt writing in not a very nice way) behind my back. This happened on Xmas Day when staff called Police and tried to blame me.  

When you ban someone from visiting LPFT were supposed to carry out an Impact Assessment but this was not done.  The Impact Assessment should have been carried out on myself and Elizabeth with copy to her sister, NR who was LPFT’s choice to displace me in court last year.  No correct procedures were done.  Ms Connery mentions about impact “due to continued concerns about Elizabeth’s health and wellbeing and the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of staff and other patients on the ward” .   What is she talking about? What is meant exactly about the safety of staff and other patients? What is Ms Connery trying to imply that I am someone who has gone onto the ward with weapons, threatening members of staff when I have been in visitor’s rooms on the occasions when I was allowed to visit. Why was Police time wasted on more than one occasion? why are they using bullying tactics to intimidate me as a visitor? Ms Connery has simply repeated the malicious allegations coming from a person in charge who is reliant on MDT backing and without any substance or evidence.     When I visited Elizabeth there are little side visitor’s rooms and CCTV throughout to monitor behaviour of any visitors. So concerned were myself and a visitor that we opted to complete a Police Section 9 statement but Police were not even bothering to investigate a so called incident so ‘serious’ that a member/members of staff called Police on Xmas Day wasting their time.   It is totally unjustified to make out I am a risk in any way and to restrict contact getting staff to write nastily behind my back and that is what is upsetting to Elizabeth. Staff constantly writing notes. It is no doubt an abuse of power and process.   It is all done with the intention of making you feel intimidated and uncomfortable to go and visit.  During my visits, I spent time in the small box room of the visitor’s rooms not socialising with staff or patients on the ward itself.   Sometimes one other patient would knock on the door of the visitor’s room Elizabeth introduced me as her friend. This friend knew I always brought food and nice things onto the ward that Elizabeth would share but now all has stopped due to shortage of space in the fridge. It is unjustified of Ms Connery to say these comments and for me to have received an extremely nasty threatening letter alleging intimidation and aggression towards staff at Trust HQ when all I did was sit in a corner writing a note and the only person was a receptionist and the visit was witnessed by a friend.   I viewed CCTV footage and there was nothing to see relating to such behaviour as described in their letter.

“The second part of the complaint states: Ms Bevis is of the opinion that Elizabeth’s phone is being withheld indefinitely”   To Clarify, Elizabeth’s phone access and use is being managed in line with her care plan to protect her health and wellbeing as part of her mental health treatment.”   This has been going on for months now with no end in sight. We pay a Vodafone contact for the phone and it is only fair LPFT refund the money to Elizabeth in the circumstances.

Not having full access to her mobile phone means that Elizabeth can no longer listen to her music, see pictures of her cat readily and all phone contact numbers are in the phone so she cannot make calls to anyone and is encouraged to use their phone on loud speaker in the visitor’s room.  This is inflicting upon the rest of the family not just me.  It is abusive and inhumane to take away the phone from a vulnerable person held like a prisoner on never-ending sentence.  It is degrading and undignified to put members of staff supervising all calls, all visits etc. How would they like it?  This is not being done to protect my daughter but to protect themselves.

Ms Connery ends by stating “hope this letter provides reassurance around the care afforded to Elizabeth in regards to the concerns raised.”  No it does not and it makes you question all the more how someone in a high up position who is well aware of everything can just sit back and do nothing.

As for care, this is not care it is worse than prison and Elizabeth described this in her own words “HELL ON EARTH”.   That is what she thinks of LPFT’s “care”. The response from Maria Caulfield would put these comments into dispute.

LETTER FROM THE RT HON MARIA CAULFIELD MP

I have another letter from the Rt Hon Maria Caulfield MP  (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU.  The letter is dated 8 February 2024 to the Rt Hon Victoria Atkins.

“As well as concerns about abuse, Ms Bevis wrote about potential diagnoses for her daughter which might affect her mental health and/or affect her capacity to make specific decisions although I cannot respond about the specifics I have set out some general rules and guidance which I hope Ms Bevis and her daughter may find helpful.” Not quite. They (the MH team) will not budge on “paranoid schizophrenia” yet Elizabeth constantly says she is autistic but there are certainly a lot of questions that need to be answered and it is not unreasonable to question when you have certain evidence to the contrary that needs thorough checking out.

My comments to the above are that with regard to potential diagnoses, pathological tests were denied to my daughter from the moment we arrived in Lincolnshire, whereas in London for the first time ever her physical health was being taken very seriously.  I had hoped for continuation of the same level of care into her physical health but sadly that has not been the case.  It should have all been quite simple – continuation of what was being done in former area but instead we have encountered nothing but bullying. All physical health appointments eg Neurology cancelled as “unnecessary.   The Discharge Note from Enfield mentioned “abnormal findings on scan” .  To date I have not been able to find out what was mentioned twice referred to.   This was drawn to the attention of the various psychiatrists Elizabeth under LPFT in particular at Ash Villa and Castle Ward but thought unnecessary to explore further pathologically reliant on a scan done back in 2015 stated as being “normal”.   This prompted me in a small window of opportunity to have private scans done through S G Radiology in a mobile unit that do not appear to be normal.   

“ The Government makes it clear, in the Care Act’s Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Local Authorities must ensure that the services they commission are safe, effective and of high quality.  Where anyone alleges poor care, neglect or abuse we expect those providing the service, local authorities and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to take swift action. “    

Unfortunately, sadly this has never been the case which is why we moved from Enfield.  Once you complain this is where you see the ugly side of those supposed to care whether it be Trust or Council .Because care provision was non existent in former area and various supported living/housing and care home were appalling that is why I tried to provide a decent home for Elizabeth in the right environment which has backfired on me.   

Unfortunately in all this time the CQC have done nothing to stop the abuse in law/human rights and allowed continuation to date.  Letters I have received from two CQC inspectors are not emphatic and you never get to hear what if anything is being done about the situation.  One inspector described the CQC as a “business”.    When other patients step in to do the safeguarding as at Ash Villa something is very wrong and there is no accountability. What is the point of these organisations meant to protect vulnerable people when nothing appears to have been done.  They most certainly do not take swift action and have allowed the situation to continue.

One again I am hearing “if Ms Bevis is not satisfied with the way a provider or LA has dealt with a complaint she can escalate it to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman : I have done all that!   I had to even dispute their response which allowed for slight amendment but nothing done whatsoever.  he LG Ombudsman only wanted to investigate what happened prior to moving and that was not looked at properly. We had Judicial Review Solicitors appointed yet nothing was mentioned.  Another Joint Party Investigator was supposed to look at what happened once we had moved but this adviser refused stating it was purely a Health matter only for PHSO. Then the PHSO refused as they were waiting for everything in writing from the Joint Party Ombudsman.  In the end I simply copied their email to the PHSO but still they did not get involve.  Both cases were simply shut down without any proper investigation. My dealings with Professional Bodies have all appeared the same in that they are not there to safeguard the public but their own members and the “Professional Standards Authority” do not have powers to intervene.

“If Ms Bevis has not already done so she may also wish to seek independent legal advice and consider contacting the Citizens Advice Bureau which can provide help on a case-by-case basis.”  This is not helpful as they cannot help in what is clearly issues of human rights.  As for getting legal advice this is impossible –  you are simply met with the same response constantly that they have “no capacity”.  

Ms Caulfield also comments: “the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is designed to protect and empower people who lack the mental capacity to make a decision themselves, which may include people with advanced dementia, autism, learning disabilities and acquired brain injury.  The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards DoLs which form a key part of the Mental Capacity Act can be used to authorise the person being accommodated in a hospital or care home in circumstances the amount to a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of providing care or treatment.”

Here is my response: No it does not protect.

 If Elizabeth lacks capacity, as suggested their duty of care/standard of care in medical negligence is at a higher level.  Why is she being neglected on the ward to the extent that no one is even checking that she is being properly nourished? The LPFT and LCC are abusing the capacity assessment process to restrict or deny Elizabeth’s fundamental rights to patient autonomy to facilitate their own interests or convenience. This includes denying her rights to privacy and a family life by subjecting her to oppressive supervised visits.  The LPFT are abusing their powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to deny Elizabeth and her family fundamental human rights, not in order to prevent or control risk or to achieve the objectives of section 2 of that Act but simply to benefit themselves and to obtain control to abrogate their actual responsibilities.

The MHA 1983 was designed to protect the interest of the mentally ill, not provide a convenient set of excuses for clinicians, nurses and social workers.

Unfortunately, Neither the MCA 2005 or the MHA 1983 is protecting the most vulnerable people at all.  The very people who should be caring towards my daughter are being abusive and denying my daughter and that of others the right to see their families unrestricted.  I suppose they go along with their orders by Responsible Clinicians because as I have experienced there is a culture of bullying within the NHS so no one dares speak out.

Ms Caulfield further states:

“Any restrictions placed on a person must be in that individual’s best interests and necessary and proportionate.  Consideration should also be given as to whether less restrictive options could be used.  An overview of the MCA and how it is applied can be found here:   www.scie.org.uk/mca.”

I have just completed a wonderful course through SCIE on mental capacity and “best interests” so I know very well that nothing LPFT are doing is in the slightest bit correct.

Re: displacement of NR previously covered, this shows overwhelmingly the need to update the MHA,   our case makes a mockery of the MHA and extortionate costs of litigation through presentation of untruthful reports and comments put before court. This is why courts should be open and transparent. I could write a book on it!.  The MHA is not fit for purpose and the MCA is also failing those who are vulnerable and their families.

Ms Caulfield mentions about my complaint of restricted visits and contact, In my case banning:  “contact with family and friends is a crucial part of a person’s care and no one should be denied reasonable access to visitors whilst they are a resident in a care home or a patient in a hospital or hospice”  “This includes having a loved one at a hospital bedside for a crucial diagnosis discussion, receiving assistance from a “care supporter” or simply going for a walk with a family member or friend.  The statutory instrument (SI) on visiting    (www.legislation,gov.uk/uksi/2023/1402/introduction/made laid on 18 December 2023 inserts a new fundamental standard on visiting and accompanying to the CQC regulations.  This will commence on 6 April 2024. Try telling that to LPFT, a law unto themselves.

About Elizabeth being sent to Durham, Ms Caulfield writes:   “inappropriate out of area placements (OAPs) occur when people are admitted to a mental health inpatient ward outside of their local area due to lack of available beds locally.  We remain committed to eliminating all inappropriate acute out of area placements for adults (people age 18 and over).  NHS England continues to work with the worst performing areas supporting them to improve, and we are working with them to ensure that systems prioritise this, including a focus on discharge and flow.  To support adult social care and discharge up to £2.28 billion has bee made available in 2023/2024 and £4.7 billion in 2024/25.  This can be used to support discharge from mental health inpatient settings, reducing bed occupancy and OAPs.

I hope this reply is helpful.

I would have liked action rather than words and intervention because there is no end in sight of the never-ending detention and abuse of my daughter; assessments have gone on behind out backs for a care home in West Sussex so very far away from all the family.   I am not alone and all of this is being done because I as mother has dared to question certain private scan results and my next blog will be all about that.

These are Elizabeth’s wishes:

FRIDAY 10^TH NOVEMBER 2023

“MY IDEA”  BY ELIZABETH BEVIS

“I WANT TO EVENTUALLY COME HOME TO LIVE WITH MY MUM IN THE ANNEX THROUGH COURT OF PROTECTION.  I MISS MY MUM GREATLY AND WANT TO GO HOME TO HER”

There is no way she would have written this if I was the person who a team of circa 30 try to make look bad and what on earth have they been writing behind my back to justify this and call Police out several times for no reason.  To think a team of 30 meet regularly and discuss you behind your back and then make the decision to stop contact because of concerns they do not make clear or is it really the team, rather than the person with overall control of the ward ie the RC. Nothing is being done to protect the public or the vulnerable person from such abuse. By going along with what is ordered by certain people at the top staff are acting ultra vires and breaking the law as well as their own Codes of Conduct.   They get away with it because their own professional bodies do nothing to intervene and because the Professional Standards Authority have no power to intervene. Also this whole situation would not be still ongoing if it were not for those at the very top of the Trust who choose to support rather than intervene the actions of certain professionals and allow the law to be broken.