10th Decemnber 2011

Kent County Council cruelly pulled the rug from under mum leaving her in limbo in hospital for seven weeks (21st October to 8th December 2011). Our litigation failed though I think we have made KCC and others think more seriously about the risks involved in moving elderly and frail people from homes they love against their will. The responsibility has been taken away from me by all the KCC decision-makers and the judges but I will do all I can to protect and promote mum's life, health and wellbeing. 

Mum moved into an excellent new independent private nursing home on Thursday 8th December called Rusthall Lodge near Tunbridge Wells. So far she is thriving which we are thankful for.

For the story since June 2010 see below!

Myths, facts & red herrings

I wrote this 17 months ago.

One big fact is that Kent County Council had committed the land that Bowles Lodge is on as part of a Private Finance Initiative. In that sense the consultation whether to close it or not was all about money but not, as is usually thought - particularly in these tough economic times - about saving money. This was about ensuring they got the PFI money to build the replacement Extra care Housing scheme.

A bigger fact is that KCC refused point blank to assess the risks to mum and many others' lives of moving then against their wills to other homes. Sadly, this is still the case. I call upon them to track all the elderly and frail people that have been evicted to find out whether they thrive or die prematurely.

Bowles Lodge Stays! Facts Myths Red Herrings

Mum reacts to the end of her legal case

Kent & Sussex Courier, 2nd December 2011

Although the headline sounds pretty awful and she felt hurt by both judge's decisions the nursing staff kept a close eye on her and when I saw her yesterday she was in good spirits and pleased about leaving hospital next week.

Mum Courier 2.12.11

Mum's friend makes it to New Zealand

Kent Messenger 2nd December 2011

Mum's friend Louise left Bowles Lodge on 24th November to fly to New Zealand to live with her daughter. I am sure she was totally unaware that her departure sealed the fate of mum's case. A strange string of events! Mum did not have an opportunity to say goodbye but it is wonderful to hear about the reception she has received.

Louise in New Zealand

An empty shell - full of heart!

We went to pick up mum's belongings today from Bowles Lodge.

It was sad to see mum's home so empty. Talked with sever\l staff and you could see the sadness in their faces. Kate, a team leader, has worked there for 21 years and has cared for so many elderly people.

These are the real heroes in this world. Their dedicated service goes largely unrecognised yet they show dignity and respect in action - far removed from the statements of councillors.

Open letter to graham Gibbens & his response

From: John Porter [mailto:john@balloons.plus.com]
Sent: 26 November 2011 14:19
To: Gibbens, Graham - MEM
Cc: Seal, Beverley - FSC OPPD; Terry, Margaret - FSC OPPD; Tidmarsh, Anne - FSC OPPD (Older People and Physical Disability); Wilson, Jerry - Multi Role (FSC SC (Strategic Commissioning)/FSC OPPD)
Subject: Mum

Dear Graham

Now that Bowles Lodge is closed and the legal challenge has ended there are some important things that I would like to say.

When I told mum that the case was over and that she would need to go to a new home she said "I want to go to sleep and never wake up". Yes, there was a huge lump in my throat, but with gentle assurance I think she has accepted it and I know the hospital staff are doing all they can to assure her and are keeping an eye on her in the wake of this critical news.

My top priority now is to ensure that mum is discharged from Tunbridge Wells Hospital to the best place possible that will meet her needs now and until the day she decides to leave her body on this beautiful planet of ours. I know this is KCC and the hospital's priority too. I give you my assurance that I will co-operate fully with hospital staff, Jerry Wilson, Margaret Terry and Beverley Seal in all the processes necessary to safeguard mum's life and her physical, psychological and spiritual health and well-being. I have looked at the KCC Care Directory and am unsure where to start so I will need some help that I know Jerry will provide as he has already offered it. The hospital medical and nursing team are also completing another INP and medical statement which will assist this process along with KCC's INP.

Although I have been robust in my opposition to the closure of Bowles Lodge, my comments had to be targeted at you Graham as the decision-maker. That was your unenviable role. I hope you did not think that any of it was personal. In fact I commend you for the professional way you discharged the duties of your position at every stage. This was evident by the way you conducted yourself at the six hour Cabinet Scrutiny Meeting in January; unlike the poor attitude demonstrated by some of your fellow councillors.

What often happens in legal cases like this is that when it is over no-one talks to each other. I find this approach to be wholly unsatisfactory and would like to re-open dialogue with you and others in 2012 about how we care for older people. I have always accepted the Council's arguments about changing demographics etc and also appreciate that though we may be living longer we are not necessarily staying healthy longer. This has major impacts on us as a society. As a purchaser and provider KCC is often caught in the middle and with the current financial cutbacks and government policy are sometimes forced into uncomfortable corners that make communication with the public rather fraught. The truth is that local authorities do have an important part to play but there are so many other factors in this ageing puzzle that are way beyond their influence. The last two years have taught me much and, as a consequence, I may have something to contribute to on-going conversations that you and others are bound to have. I don't believe that any experience is a waste! Now that the heat of the legal challenge has passed we can do this in a different atmosphere.

I also want to put firmly on record why I led the campaign against closure. I stood up after Margaret Howard's PowerPoint presentation in June 2010 because it seemed to me a crazy proposal for the residents - not for KCC - for you it makes sense. It is sad though that the very old have to make way for the younger elderly people. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". The audience was comprised of elderly and frail people and their bemused relatives. I gave a short speech, was applauded and suddenly became a reluctant leader of a campaign. Although there were some willing helpers I was doing it mostly on my own and doing a full-time job. I did some research and discovered that many people die prematurely when they are moved against their wills from homes that they love and are settled in. All the debates about PFI, other sites etc were red herrings so far as mum's future was concerned. Once you made your decision, union pressure evaporated, staff sought redeployment, families started to move their relatives fearing scarcity of places and so Bowles Lodge began to empty until Louise, that beautiful 102 year-old lady left last Thursday to fly to New Zealand and so it was sealed that mum would never return to the place she loved.

It is a terribly sad fact that at least six people died from the date the consultation started until the date you made your decision. Since you made your decision until now I know that another four former residents of Bowles Lodge have died within a few months of their transfer to new homes. I have complete confidence that all transfers were and will be, like in mum's case now, done with the utmost care, with skill and dignity and respect with a comprehensive care package put in place to minimise stated risks. I think what is in everyone's interests is to conduct some research into how all those transferred to new homes cope with the transfer and how long they live for with reference to their INPs so far as life expectancy can be judged. So my only reason for pursuing the legal route was driven by the Council's refusal to assess the risks to mum's life in September 2010 (Oliver Mills' letter). I understand why KCC refused because if an expert was able to demonstrate that moving mum could kill her prematurely it would put KCC in a very difficult position and make your decision an even more difficult one to make.

Once I had seen Dr Fox's (a specialist consultant in the psychiatry of old age) report that an involuntary transfer could shorten mum's life I had several very careful conversations with mum and she asked me do everything in my power so that she could stay and die at Bowles Lodge. Both Beverley and Margaret have witnessed this and I know will support me in saying that it was mum's wish I proceed with the legal case and that mum emphatically reemphasised this on more than one occasion. Indeed she did so on BBC and Meridian TV. I could never ignore such a powerful mandate, even if it meant she might be alone at Bowles Lodge. She said she would have not minded and was with familiar people such as the staff. Personally I felt this would have been very unsatisfactory but I had to respect mum's very determined and expressed wishes. This point was completely overlooked by both the High Court and Court of Appeal. So what I did I did out of love for mum and will continue to do all within my power motivated by my love for her as her son.

On a personal note I must say one thing that you may or may not understand. You and Margaret Howard often said "We appreciate that this must be a very difficult and stressful time etc". Of course there have been times of stress but I have never been that emotionally attached to the outcome. I knew there would never be real winners or losers in this case. To me it is not about winning or losing - it is doing what is right to the best of my ability. You made the decision. You have the responsibility. Your fellow councillors then shared it with you at the Cabinet Scrutiny meeting and finally two judges also share the responsibility. That takes it all away from me.

Finally I want to pay special tribute to Margaret Terry, Beverley Seal and all the care team at Bowles Lodge. Margaret knew mum would thrive at Bowles Lodge and she did because of the love, human compassion and expertise of the care team. Even on your visits to homes in Kent I'm sure you have not witnessed those intimate moments of care when helping someone like mum to bed. Use of appropriate touch, patient listening and attention to the things that matter to mum meant she could go to sleep in peace. That is a truly wonderful testament to KCC staff and will probably never be celebrated in any glittering awards ceremony. In my view they are the real heroes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this rather long email. It was important for me to express these things. Now my attention is on finding mum's new home. I look forward to seeing you in the New Year.

Kind regards

John

From: Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk [mailto:Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk]
Sent: 29 November 2011 14:19
To: john@balloons.plus.com
Cc: Beverley.Seal@kent.gov.uk; margaret.terry@kent.gov.uk; Anne.Tidmarsh@kent.gov.uk; Jerry.Wilson@kent.gov.uk; Christy.Holden@kent.gov.uk
Subject: Mum

Dear John

Thank you for your recent sincere and heartfelt email regarding your mother.

As you quite rightly say, our priority throughout this process has always been to ensure that your mother receives the most suitable care that is appropriate to her personal needs and requirements. We will continue working hard with you and your mother to achieve the very best outcomes for her.

I will be more than happy to meet with you in the New Year as suggested. If you would like to let Susannah Adams know what date and time suits you best we will confirm something in the diary.

Thank you once again John for your very positive comments about the Kent County Council staff. I will ensure that they are passed on to those concerned.

With best wishes

Graham

Lord Justice Moses says no grounds for appeal and shares responsibility for what happens to mum

Moses Decision

Mum's grounds for appeal and skeleton argument

Grounds

Grounds of Appeal 24th November 2011

Skeleton argument

Skeleton Argument Court of Appeal

Mr Pitterway QC's decision

Here is the judge who made the decision - he now shares responsibility about what happens to mum

The hearing took place in a basement court which was not very clean - a speaking was hanging off in one of the corners of the court near the ceiling. It felt like basement justice!

Yvonne Hossack – Solicitor for the Claimant

Note of Judgment – Hearing on the 23^rd November 2011

Before Mr. Pitterway QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court

This is an application by Mrs Waylor by her litigation friend and son to:

1. Return to Bowles Lodge

2. Direct Kent County Council to take no steps to close Bowles lodge

This is an application for interim relief in an action for negligence. The background is in the Witness Statement of Yvonne Hossack. 90 year old resident at Bowles Lodge until the 21^st October 2011 when she was admitted to hospital by her GP.

Bowles Lodge is due to be closed on the 24^th November 2011. Presently there is one resident there who is 102 and going to New Zealand tomorrow.

Exhibited to Mrs Hossacks Witness Statement is an Individual Needs Portrayal and a report from a consultant geriatrician Dr Smithard. The Particulars of Claim attach a report from Dr Fox dated July 2011 and I have also read a copy of the Defence. I have been referred to the case of Trim paragraphs 21-26. I have been referred to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Health and Social Care Act and also to the regulations.

Mr Hutchings submits that the Claimant is entitled to Interim Judgment. He relies on Dr Fox’s expectation of life expectancy and proper package before removal and to Dr Smithard’s report which to a certain extent supersedes Dr Fox’s.

Dr Smithard’s Report [reads] "... none require health funding, memory loss is not EMI but may be a factor in need for nursing. Return to Bowles Lodge... from purely medical viewpoints... could be met by present carers, best to Bowles Lodge, if not dual registered. Finding replacement home undefined period of time, not unreasonable.”

Mr Hutchings suggest blocking- summary paragraphs 38-40. In Summary he says as of 6/10/11 24 hour residential two people zimmer [etc reads]. 20/10/11 added two carers washed and hoist, breathlessness. Only 4 residents. 2 carers to 4 higher than if operating with large number of residents.... 26/10/11 additional information from hospital, nursing, page 40 24 hour care nursing multi disciplinary team at hospital all in agreement.

Mr Hutchings relies on a phone conversation and Mrs Bates state in effect doesn’t need nursing care. Finally it is Mrs Waylor’s own wish to return.

He says there are two limbs and the second limb is ambitious. I detect from his submissions that he accepts the claim contains elements of public law.

For the Defendant Mr Bourne says that if Nursing care is required it cannot be provided at Bowles Lodge. He claims abuse of process, collateral damage to a care home closure, lengthy period of consultation letter before claim February 2011 JR would fail because of delay. In my judgment Mrs Waylor has failed to show a good arguable case.

First limb – assessment clear now requires nursing care Dr Smithard at best gives lukewarm support. The assessment in October was a multi disciplinary. If correct, fact not registered nursing care, no realistic prospect of success.

Clearly Public Law. Should have been Judicial Review not negligence. LBC refers to lack of success JR.

If I am wrong in either of the above, I am not convinced on balance of convenience... now requires medical care, social isolation. Two moves not one move likely to affect health and life expectancy.

It is important that the Defendants willingness to find a suitable nursing home is important. It is to be hoped that Mrs Waylor’s’ family and the Defendant will work together.

Application dismissed.

High Court hearing - Yvonne Hossack's witness statement

Yvonne Hossack's Witness Statement

High Court hearing - my witness statement

Oddly, mum's barrister decided not to hand this to the judge!

John Porter Witness Statement 23.11.11

High Court hearing - Kent County Council's witness statement

This was emailed to Yvonne Hossack's office in Kettering 24 minutes before the hearing was due to start - how's that for fairness!

Waylor v Kent Smt

In case you are getting lost in the chronology of correspondence - here is an overview...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

CLAIM NO. HQ11X03610

BETWEEN:

VERA GRACE WAYLOR

(by her litigation friend, JOHN PORTER)

Claimant

-and-

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL

Defendant

___________________________________________________________________________

CHRONOLOGY OF CORRESPONDENCE

___________________________________________________________________________

DATE	CORRESPONDENCE TO	CORRESPONDENCE FROM	CONTENT
28.10.2011	Benjamin Watts – Kent County Council	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Medical evidence in support of Mrs Waylor’s nursing needs
07.11.2011	Dr Fox – Expert	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Finding another geriatrician
09.11.2011	Dr Fox – Expert	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Dr Smithard’s visit to Mrs Waylor in hospital
09.11.2011	Dr David Smithard – Geriatrician	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Arranging to visit Mrs Waylor in Hospital
11.11.2011	Dr David Smithard – Geriatrician	Yvonne Hossack - Hossacks	Confirming time of visit to see Mrs Waylor
15.11.2011	Wendy Bates – Patient Safety and Risk Management	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Consent to release information regarding assessment
18.11.2011	Dr David Smithard – Geriatrician	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Sending his report through regarding Mrs Waylor
18.11.2011	Wendy Bates – Patient Safety and Risk Management	John Porter – litigation friend of Claimant	Regarding a day release from the hospital to Bowles Lodge
18.11.2011	Sage Patel – Kent County Council	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Possible injunctive relief
21.11.2011	Sage Patel – Kent County Council	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Possible Injunctive relief
21.11.2011	Wendy Bates – Patient Safety and Risk Management	Yvonne Hossack – Hossacks	Needs of Mrs Waylor

Letter from KCC responding to Dr Smithard's report

KCC Mrs Waylor 21st November 2011

Emails between Yvonne, the hospital & KCC

Emails Between Yvonne, The Hospital & KCC

We get another expert opinion of mum's needs while she is in hospital

See page 3! KCC describe this report as "useless" later which extraordinary considering the pedigree of this expert Geriatrician.

Dr Smithard Report 17 11 11

Letter from Yvonne Hossack to Dr Reynolds

HOSSACKS

Solicitors & Commissioners for Oaths

Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority

Ivy Cott

89 Broadway, Kettering, Northamptonshire NN15 6DF

Telephone: 01536 518638 Fax: 01536 516820

Email: hossacks@hossacks.plus.com

Principal: Yvonne Hossack, Solicitor-Advocate (HCCivilP)
SRA No: 370054

To:

Dr Reynolds: Hand delivered

5^th November 2011

Dear Dr Reynolds

Re: Vera Waylor

Thank you for being kind enough to talk to me about my client Vera. As discussed, neither her son John nor I are committed to any course of action. Our only concern is to weigh up the competing risks to Vera and to make a decision in her best interests. As neither of us are clinicians we rely on experts to give us advice.

The present problem is that we have a Report from Dr Chris Fox on the mortality risks of moving Vera. His Report is attached and you will note what he says about her physical condition at the time he met her.

What we need to know is whether the risks of Vera transferring back to Bowles Lodge outweigh the mortality risk of moving her. That question pre-supposes that Bowles Lodge could meet her needs and that is the critical question which Kent County Council tell us you have decided in the negative. You, on the other hand, tell us that you have carefully described Vera’s needs to Kent County Council and they told you that they could not meet her needs. I will put these questions to you more formally at the end of this letter and no doubt you will take legal advice if you are concerned in any way. To my mind there is a concern because in his email to me of the 4^th November 2011, reproduced in full at the end of this letter, Mr Ian Clark a principal solicitor with Kent County Council says that “it is the clinical decision of your client’s consultant that you would be challenging”.

You will also find attached the completed Individual Needs Portrayal and will see that on the 6^th October 2011 Kent County Council said that Vera needed 24hr care in a residential setting but now:

“Mrs Waylor s assessment and deterioration in her general health show that her needs require 24 hour care within a nursing home environment. The multi-disiplinary team at the hospital including her medical team are all in agreement that a nursing home would be the best place to meet her needs”

There are two documents within the Individual Needs Portrayal which have no data attached – I suspect this was because the data was hand-written. These are the Waterlow scores and the Continuing Healthcare checklist. Neither were attached the GP report or the report by Lisa Rose DN of the 6.10.11 nor any data relating to GP feedback regarding recovery from medical conditions, all of which are referred to in the INP.

Please also find attached Kent County Council’s Defence to Vera’s Claim dated the 27^th October 2011 and after her latest admission. Please note paragraphs 1, 7 (iii) (a) and (b) from which it is clear that KCC were considering at that time that Vera may be moved because of the level of her dementia. Clearly, as you confirmed in our conversation, this lady does not come within the EMI category.

So now the given reasons for transfer are medical.

On the 3^rd November 2011 Ian Clark wrote to my colleague making it clear that the basis of the current defence is “a medical decision” and asks whether I contemplate taking proceedings against the hospital:

From: Ian.Clark@kent.gov.uk [mailto:Ian.Clark@kent.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 November 2011 17:35
To: hossacks@hossacks.plus.com
Cc: Benjamin.Watts@kent.gov.uk
Subject: Vera Waylor

Dear Ms. Edwards,

Thank you for your letter. I should like to receive a copy of your proposed application before responding in detail. I hope that it will be with me in the morning, or that your technical difficulties will have resolved thermselves by then.

The decision that your client required nursing care was made following an assessment to which a Kent County Council social worker contributed, but it is, of course, primarily a medical decision. Have you written to the hospital about this, or are you proposing to, and do you contemplate action against them?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Clark

Principal Solicitor

Community Services Team

Governance and Law

Kent County Council County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XQ

I responded that I could not say without sight of the documents but that I had in other cases injuncted to prevent discharge where there was a dispute as to the receiving facility. I now understand from you that you would certainly not discharge Vera to what may be an unsuitable facility and that there is no question of discharge until what facility should receive Vera is resolved.

Turning now to the INP it seems to me that Vera could not be entitled to Continuing Health Care funding. None of the domains seems to me (and, although a layman, I am a former care provider responsible for contracts involving splits of funding) to fit within a category A save perhaps – and your advice is needed here – if emergency medication were needed for heart failure in advance of an ambulance?

What is not clear to me is which of Vera’s needs are nursing and could not be met by carers albeit at a higher care ratio than may be usual in a residential setting. I do understand from you that were Vera to be cared for in a nursing facility then skilled care may prevent frequent hospital admissions and that each admission carries with it a risk of mortality.

It also seems to me that Vera has been suffering high degrees of anxiety requiring reassurance day and night because of her fear of moving. Please see the data attached regarding mortality in three recent cases I challenged involving four care homes. In the first such case, some 14 years ago, 15 out of 41 residents died in the 12 months post closure. Using ONS data I was able to discern that average yearly mortality over 24 like Local Authority care homes in the same County over the preceding four years was a little over 18%, just under half that in the study group.

My understanding is that experts are agreed that although mitigating factors can be employed, none can alleviate the risk. What is particularly troubling in Vera’s case is that a discharge from hospital to a strange facility will mean that the ameliorating work would be much more difficult to carry out if at all.

What I would like you to consider and advise us on is:

1. Whose decision is it that Vera Waylor needs nursing care?

2. Is there anything in the INP that a specially trained carer or carers cannot do with input from a District Nurse? If there is then could this need be met by the Local Authority commissioning in additional nursing care?

3. Are Vera’s physical symptoms likely to have been increased by her anxiety? If so then could those symptoms settle if Vera were reassured that her home is safe?

4. Do you accept that there is a clinical risk if Vera is involuntarily transferred?

5. If you accept that there is a risk, then does the benefit of transfer outweigh this risk?

Many thanks for your help doctor

Yours sincerely

Yvonne Hossack

Hossacks

Enc: INP, Dr Fox Report, mortality outcome data, Kent County Council Defence

From: Ian.Clark@kent.gov.uk [mailto:Ian.Clark@kent.gov.uk]
Sent: 04 November 2011 11:25
To: hossacks@hossacks.plus.com
Cc: Benjamin.Watts@kent.gov.uk
Subject: FW: updated INPoct11.doc

Dear Mrs. Hossack,

Thank you for your e-mail sent yesterday evening. I still await the draft of your claim form. I assume that it will make some reference to the cross-undertakings you offer in respect of damages.

I am pleased to hear that, since it is the clinical decision of your client's consultant that you would be challenging, you accept the need to involve the health authority in any proceedings that you might bring.

I attach the Individual Needs Portrayal carried out on your client.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Clark

Principal Solicitor

Community Services Team

Governance and Law

Kent County Council County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XQ

E: ian.clark @kent.gov.uk T: 01622 694392 F: 01622 694266 W: www.kent.gov.uk/Legal

The reason why we are doing this - read Dr Chris Fox's report

If mum is evicted from Bowles Lodge she could die. This has been our contention from the start and this report provides an expert's view that forms a solid basis for our legal action. Mum has always wanted me to see this case through to the end. The time is now looming so check out pages 6-8.

Dr Fox Report

Emails between KCC and Yvonne Hossack

HOSSACKS

Solicitors & Commissioners for Oaths

Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority

Ivy Cott

89 Broadway, Kettering, Northamptonshire NN15 6DF

Telephone: 01536 518638 Fax: 01536 516820

Email: hossacks@hossacks.plus.com

Principal: Yvonne Hossack, Solicitor-Advocate (HCCivilP)
SRA No: 370054

Dear Sirs

Re: Vera Waylor care needs

Further to our correspondence late last week when you explained that Mrs Waylor had been assessed as needing nursing care by a single physician but were unable to give us any details, we have referred this matter back to Dr Chris Fox.

He says:

" This decision should be made in the best interests of Mrs Waylor.

It is not usual practice that a geriatrician would suggest nursing home placement for dementia on its own. Usually old age psychiatric services advise usually a nurse cpn or some services old age psychiatry medical assessment would occur in hospital. If the clinical situation has changed then this is needed to guide optimal placement. If Mrs Waylor has similar levels of behaviour and dependency it does not appear that the non return to Bowles Lodge has been justified."

Would you please be kind enough to let us have Dr Reynolds assessment without delay. Whilst I appreciate that KCC does not employ Dr Reynolds and the hospital is not KCC property, nevertheless KCC – extraordinarily – appear to have relied on word of mouth without seeing a single document and without a multi-disciplinary assessment meeting even though the decision to transfer our unfortunate client elsewhere could bring forth her death.

We feel sure that KCC will, even at this late stage, wish to have a multi-disciplinary assessment and share information with us. Would you like to liaise with the NHS now?

Dr Fox has offered to see Mrs Waylor again and offer his own expert advice. It would be helpful if he could speak to Dr Reynolds bearing in mind that your own information is so limited. We hope that you would consider this helpful and confirm that you have no objection.

Yours faithfully

Yvonne Hossack

Hossacks

From: Benjamin.Watts@kent.gov.uk [mailto:Benjamin.Watts@kent.gov.uk]
Sent: 28 October 2011 18:05
To: hossacks@hossacks.plus.com
Cc: Ian.Clark@kent.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Your client - Vera Waylor

Dear Ms Hossack,
As I expressed in my earlier email, I had only heard from my client at this stage and understood that the Doctor had spoken to your client.
I updated you as a matter of professional courtesy at the earliest opportunity and indicated I would further update you next week. As and when I receive anything further I will write to you.
You will appreciate that Dr Reynolds is not a KCC employee and that as the hospital is not a KCC property it is not within our gift to offer those facilities.
That said, I will gladly revert to my client and take instructions in relation to how you would wish KCC to assist.
I will be in touch next week.
Yours sincerely


Ben Watts
Team Leader (Solicitor)
Litigation, Employment and Education
KCC Legal Services

---

From: Yvonne Hossack <hossacks@hossacks.plus.com>
To: Watts, Benjamin - BSS GL
Cc: Clark, Ian - BSS GL
Sent: Fri Oct 28 17:56:25 2011
Subject: RE: Your client - Vera Waylor

HOSSACKS

Solicitors & Commissioners for Oaths

Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority

Ivy Cott

89 Broadway, Kettering, Northamptonshire NN15 6DF

Telephone: 01536 518638 Fax: 01536 516820

Email: hossacks@hossacks.plus.com

Principal: Yvonne Hossack, Solicitor-Advocate (HCCivilP)
SRA No: 370054

Dear Mr Watts

We require our own assessment of course. Please confirm that facilities will be made available.

Please also provide us without delay with what seems to be a sole assessment by Dr Reynolds rather than a multi-disciplinary one. We presume that you have had sight of the document before writing to us.

Yours sincerely

Yvonne Hossack

Hossacks

From: Benjamin.Watts@kent.gov.uk [mailto:Benjamin.Watts@kent.gov.uk]
Sent: 28 October 2011 16:44
To: hossacks@hossacks.plus.com
Cc: Ian.Clark@kent.gov.uk
Subject: Your client - Vera Waylor

Dear Ms Hossack,
I understand from my client that Dr Reynolds has today determined that your client requires nursing care. I am further told that Dr Reynolds has also spoken with your client's son, who is her litigation friend for the proceedings against my client.

As I believe you are aware, Bowles Lodge is not registered nor able to take those requiring nursing care. My client remains more than happy to assist your client and her son in seeking suitable nursing homes.

I will update you next week as necessary and in the meantime if I can assist further please do not hesitate to contact.

Yours sincerely



Ben Watts
Team Leader (Solicitor)
Litigation, Employment and Education
KCC Legal Services