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

The plot is revealed in all its subversive truth

I have conversations with Jerry Wilson, the senior social worker at the hospital and Dr Reynolds. Both are singing from the same hymn sheet. Mum has been assessed by a multidisciplinary team, she can be discharged but not back to Bowles Lodge as she now has nursing needs.

Their view is summarised in the updated Individual Needs Portrayal:

Mrs Waylor is living in a home which is due to close. Consequently there are only 4 residents currently and the ration is 2 staff to 4 residents which is higher than it would be if the home was operating at the usual capacity of residents.

The home have stated that if they were operating with a larger number of residents they would not be able to meet Mrs Waylor's needs based on a high need for one to one time, due to her double incontinence, double handed moving and handling, high level of reassurance needed, support due to being hard of hearing and registered blind.

The additional information from the Tunbridge Wells Hospital and the deterioration in Mrs Waylors general condition now show that her needs require the provision of nursing home care.

This sly move effectively placed mum in limbo where, as it turned out she would be for six more weeks!

Dr Reynolds voice was shaky and he sounded much less confident.

As always I let Yvonne Hossack know exactly what was going on.

Kent County Council's defence to our claim (see 29/9/11 post)

KCC Vera Waylor Defence

The plot deepens

I speak with mum's consultant, Dr Reynolds. He says "... she does not have any breathing difficulties... her heart beat was a little slow so I have adjusted her medication...". I asked if she could be discharged. He could not see why not but social services have asked to complete their assessment before this happens (an Individual Needs Portrayal that was started at that farcical meeting on 6th October - see that post for more info).

He sounds defensive as he is aware of mum's litigation against Kent County Council and does not want to be drawn into it. That sounds fair enough as he is simply required to give his medical view in mum's best interests.

The plot thickens

I visit mum who has now been admitted to room 20 in Ward 22. The nurses are a little puzzled why she is there - as they were when she was taken from A&E the night before following X-rays - to the Acute Assessment Unit. The receiving nurse there asked "What are we assessing?".

Good question that needs to be answered.

Mum admitted to hospital

I get a call to say mum has been taken to the brand new hospital at Pembury with breathing difficulties. I dash from London, worried sick arriving at A&E to find mum calm, breathing normally but desperate for a coffee and a couple of biscuits. This does not feel right.

The doctor carefully examines mum and says "I find no shortness of breath... I don't know why she has been brought here".

HAPPY 90th BIRTHDAY MUM!

Stop messing about with the camera - I want some cake!

Kent & Sussex Courier, 7th October

Vera, 89, takes fight over care to High Court

AN 89-YEAR-OLD woman has warned Kent County Council that moving her out of her care home could kill her. Hawkhurst care home Bowles Lodge is due to be closed next month, but Vera Waylor does not want to move.

Her response has been to lodge a claim in the High Court against the council, which could set a precedent for local authorities everywhere.

The writ states that Mrs Waylor is registered blind, is deaf in both ears and suffers from depression, osteoporosis and heart problems.

In July she had a stroke and is recovering from pneumonia and ventricular tachycardia.

The writ claims that the risks posed to her health by the proposed involuntary move to another home are clinically unjustifiable and would probably lead to her death within a year.

A report by a top psychiatrist suggests that if she stayed at Bowles Lodge she could live considerably longer.

Barristers are claiming the council acted in a negligent manner by not assessing the risks to Mrs Waylor's life before moving her to another home.

They said the case could set a legal precedent that will force local authorities to think again about assessing the medical risks of premature death to people before deciding whether to close a home or not.

Mrs Waylor's solicitor Yvonne Hossack is currently seeking a moratorium and public inquiry into care home closures. She has successfully prevented the closure of a number of homes across the country. She said: "For too long those charged with protecting elderly people like Vera have argued that it does no harm to move them. We believe this has resulted in many premature deaths. It is my prayer that Vera's brave claim will not only protect her life but those of all the other Vera's who face being evicted from their homes."

John Porter, Mrs Waylor's son, said: "Kent County Council say they treat elderly people with respect and dignity. "Taking my frail mother's home away from her, against her will, is the absolute opposite. Mum is determined that this case is seen right to the highest court in the land, and beyond if necessary."

A council spokesman said: "We understand that legal proceedings have been issued. Given these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the council to comment."

The date for the hearing at the High Court has yet to be fixed."

Reassessment meeting farce 6th October

On Thursday I attended a meeting to reassess mum's care needs at Bowles Lodge. This was instigated by Beverley, the manager of Bowles Lodge. She had highlighted several areas of increased need which she felt could be best met in a nursing home and not at Bowles Lodge.

Mum's health and welfare are my and mum's legal team's prime concern yet we feel that any move to a nursing home presents a significant risk to her life due to a stroke or heart attack because of her heart failure, stroke and recent bout of pneumonia and ventricular tachycardia.

I took a day off work and expected the appropriate professionals with the required experience and expertise to be present. They were not present. Margaret, mum's excellent care manager, was there who completed an assessment only 8 weeks ago which concluded that mum required residential care, which Bowles Lodge provides, and not nursing care. She did not lead this assessment - instead her line manager Jackie did. This undermined Margaret.

Jackie took three hours and 20 minutes drilling into detail on the same topics that Margaret had covered only 8 weeks earlier. I had to ask for a break for comfort and to make everyone a drink. At the start I suggested that we just focus on the areas of perceived change since the last assessment but was ignored. I suggested that we discuss the topics that require the district nurse's input first (she had to leave to go to a clinic to treat a person with cancer at 2.30pm). I was ignored again and the nurse was one hour late. I felt for that person waiting needlessly for one hour.

Lisa, the district nurse present was clear, concise and professional. She made helpful contributions about mum's skin integrity and that her healing capacity is good. These are very positive indicators that rule out the need for nursing home care.

Apart from the nurse there was no-one who could provide an expert view concerning the other areas highlighted by Beverley. This is unprofessional and a waste of time. At least three experts' opinions now need to be sought so no recommendation could be made.

They were quick to say this assessment had nothing to do with the home closure or mum's High Court case. This is hard to believe and I think Kent County Council are pulling the strings from above to get mum re-categorised and moved out of the nursing home - particularly as I have been informed by Margaret Terry that they wish to start decommissioning the home from mid-November!

Graham Gibbens, the Conservative councillor, who made the decision to close Bowles Lodge and Margaret Howard, a senior officer constantly used these words during the consultation process: RESPECT and DIGNITY. This reassessment meeting demonstrated disrespect to mum, to me, to Margaret, mum's care manager and to Lisa, the district nurse.

If you need further evidence Jackie thought it would be a good idea to see mum and have a chat. We left the room where we had been talking and approached mum. The TV was on loud and mum is very deaf and can only see outline shapes. Did Jackie suggest lowering the volume or asking to meet mum in a quieter place? No! Now this is a senior social worker who had just rewritten Margaret's assessment from 8 weeks ago. I think this is awful.

I have absolute confidence in Beverley and her expert team to care for mum. I trust Margaret's views and support as mum's care manager. However, nearly all about all my dealings with senior officers in Social Services at Kent County Council are in direct contrast. It is these people who have power and have been working so hard to close homes of frail elderly people across Kent and put their lives at risk as a consequence.

Every experience like this strengthens mum's case and fires me with determination to ensure they do nothing that will harm her. During the consultation process 6 permanent residents died. Sadly I have heard through a relative's network that a further 4 people have died since being moved to other homes from Bowles Lodge. At least one that was split up from a close friend is unhappy. Mum is very frail but her needs are being met we have no contrary views from appropriate experts. One expert view we do have is the report for the High Court we commissioned that says if mum is moved it will shorten her life.

Vera and sons