My response to Margaret Howard's letter

From: John Porter [mailto:john@balloons.plus.com]
Sent: 29 January 2011 15:02
To: 'Margaret.Howard@kent.gov.uk'
Cc: 'Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk'; 'Christy.Holden@kent.gov.uk'; 'Jayne.Hodge@kent.gov.uk'; 'Margaret Terry'; 'Beverley.Seal@kent.gov.uk'; 'trudy.dean@kent.gov.uk'; 'leslie.christie@kent.gov.uk'; 'paul.carter@kent.gov.uk'; 'Karen Cooper'; 'Tim Strutt'; 'greg@gregclark.co.uk'; 'julia@bbc.co.uk'
Subject: Response to closure letter to mum

29th January 2011

Dear Margaret

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 26th January 2011 to my mum, Vera Waylor, a permanent resident at Bowles Lodge. This was given to her yesterday by Beverley Seal in a very professional and supportive way at a meeting with other residents. Care staff were on hand to carefully explain its content.

Today I visited mum and she is very angry about Cllr Graham Gibbens' decision and the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee's lack of challenge. She was pleased to attend some of this key meeting that was to be part of the decision-making process. She confirmed to me again that she does not want to move from Bowles Lodge. Any move, therefore, will be against my very frail and multi-disabled 89 year-old mother's will. She believed that when she became a permanent resident at Bowles Lodge she could live there for the rest of her life - in accordance with the spirit of the National Assistance Act 1948. Such a betrayal by Kent politicians to someone who served in World war II sinks deep within her heart.

Mum has given me very clear instructions to act as her litigant friend in seeking a Judicial Review of the decision. Accordingly she has instructed Yvonne Hossack, expert lawyer in the Judicial Review process surrounding local authority home closures. On mum's behalf I have now met with Yvonne about mum's case, reviewed the many cases heard in the High Court, Court Of Appeal and The European Court of Human Rights and we are confident of specific elements of mum's case that make it likely to succeed. This is assisted by all the written correspondence you have kindly sent to me in addition to other officers and counsellors that we will submit as evidence to support mum's case.

I understand that Jayne Hodge will be conducting a full Individual Needs Portrayal assessment of my mother and mum is happy to co-operate with this. I formally request that I am involved in this process and be physically present at any meetings. We do so only so far as it does not prejudice in any way the legal action that my mum is taking against the Council and that appointments are made with sufficient notice to enable my attendance. I appreciate Jayne's skills in this area but request that Margaret Terry also be involved as mum's care manager.

In the meantime I assure you that our Bowles Lodge Stays! campaign continues and I am seeking national exposure of what was a very flawed consultation process. To achieve this I am combining our campaign with that of other homes in Kent and in other places in England and Wales to debate the issues at a national level both in the public, political, legal, media and celebrity arenas. Consider Joanna Lumley's support of the Gurkhas that forced the Government to change its mind!

Yours sincerely

John Porter, on behalf of my mum, Vera Waylor

Official letter to Mum from Margaret Howard

Bowles Lodge Decision Letter

BBC Radio Kent today

7 minute interview with Jules.

This will be available until Wednesday 26th January.

It's located 2 hr 32.10 – 2.39.17 click here

This is my mandate for continuing so I'll save it somehow!

Cabinet Scrutiny Meeting Webcast

Click here

My verbal evidence starts at 54 minutes 20 seconds for 5 minutes. Mum is in the background asleep during the witness before me.

My closing minute starts at 5 hours and 25 minutes in.

My questions start at 3 hours 19 minutes and 20 seconds.

I contributed often throughout but finding that could be a challenge using the slider!

Yvonne Hossack, who is seeking a Judicial Review of Kent County Council's decision to close Mum's home

Graham Gibbens, Conservative Cabinet Member who made the decision

If mum dies prematurely because of being moved against her will to another home - he will be primarily responsible, along with the other Conservative county councillors who voted not to postpone the implementation of his decision at yesterday's seven hour meeting.

Trudy Dean, Chairman of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee (Liberal Democrat) and Leslie Christie (Labour) voted against the proposals

Jean Law, Conservative Cabinet Scrutiny Member, abstained

She was a lone Conservative abstension and clearly felt very strongly about the issues but did not vote against.

Conservative Cabinet Scrutiny Members who voted for the proposals yesterday

If mum dies prematurely by being moved against her will from Bowles Lodge. These county councillors will be responsible. From left to right:
James Scholes
Richard King
Christopher Smith
Mike Whiting
Alan Chell
Roger Manning
Eric Hoston
Richard Long

Richard Lees, Independent Cabinet Scrutiny Member, left before the vote

MUM ON TV!

Mum came to today's meeting - and is now a media star! Her few words are worth many more of mine. She is getting feisty and wants me to continue the campaign. I will - gladly.

Click here to see BBC South East Today and mum's several appearances!

Meridian also filmed a lot including mum but they spent more air time on a false teeth story - go figure!!

The meeting started at 10am and ended at 17.20! Some say it is a record.

The outcome was as I expected. The Committee commented on the proposals but have not required any postponement. This means it becomes a legal decision by 24th January. You can see contributions on their webcast - click here - in a couple of days. Trudy Dean (Lib Dem, Chairman) and Leslie Christie (Lab) voted against. Jean Law (Dep leader Cons) abstained.

It was a thorough scrutiny of the consultation process and decisions but the ruling party won - this round. Trudy was a top class chairman. There is disquiet amongst some Conservatives about the consultation. Trust em? Not on your life!

I have instructed our expert lawyer, Yvonne Hossack (Google her - you will not be disappointed) to apply for a Judicial Review.

My verbal statement follows below.

95% of people consulted are against the proposals. Councillor Gibbens says he has listened to our views but forges ahead regardless.

I ask you to require that the implementation of his decision to close Bowles Lodge is postponed pending a review by the full Council.

Why?

The key issue is this: why did the Council refuse my request to assess the risk of killing Vera, my frail mum, of moving her from her home against her will?

Councillor Gibbens and Margaret Howard talk about how careful and successful the Council has been in moving elderly residents to new homes. Where is their evidence? How many died within the first nine months of moving? It's not what they tell us repeatedly that worries me, it's what they don't tell us or you.

Sadly, six Bowles Lodge residents have died since the proposals were announced. One died within a few weeks of moving to another home. How many more have to die?

Another sad fact. 25 of the 54 people moved from homes in Hull, Southampton and Wolverhampton died within months. Dear elected councillors - as people of conscience - I beg you with all my heart, don't let this happen in Kent!

Emotional? Of course! There are though other issues in this flawed consultation.

Margaret Howard told us in August that new referrals could be made to the Day Centre. Why were social workers and community nurses we talked to under the impression that it had shut?

Private Finance schemes cost tax payers a fortune as we know from Pembury Hospital. Why were costs for the next 20 years not included in the report?

£280,000 is excessive to replace the roof? Why only one quote?

The Council claims it costs it twice as much to run homes compared to the independent sector. Why have no figures been provided to you?

I asked for the consultation questionnaire at Hawkhurst library on two separate occasions but was told they didn't have any. One member of staff didn't have a clue what I was talking about. Trudy Dean, exasperated, wrote this to Councillor Gibbens: "For the life of me I cannot understand why a library cannot print off a copy of this document if it's requested?"

Margaret Howard's presentation to Bowles Lodge residents and relatives appalled me. It demonstrated little regard to the specific needs of elderly residents with multiple disabilities. It was obvious to relatives present it was a done deal.

Why was my proposal rejected before Councillor Gibbens made his decision? Why was the Evaluation Panel made up entirely of Council officers?

My proposal is primarily about preventing falls that result in expensive hospital admissions. Why was this key point left out of the Council's summary to you?

Several Conservative members have expressed serious concerns to me about the consultation process. This could be politically devastating.

Councillor Gibbens has said repeatedly that these changes are about dignity and respect for older people. Mowing mum out of her home at Bowles Lodge against her will is undignified and disrespectful. You wouldn't allow me to do this to your parents - would you?

Finally, Margaret Howard states that "the risk of a legal challenge from one of the campaigners is high". You bet it is. I give you official notice that I am seeking a Judicial Review of Councillor Gibben's decision to close Bowles Lodge. I have instructed Yvonne Hossack, our expert lawyer, to start proceedings immediately on Vera, my beloved mum's behalf.