As you may know, I had all care funds refunded recently. However, if the PCT thought they had got rid of me, they were mistaken. I have now set in motion the restitution of monies lost on the estate ie, premature sale of the house. I sent the invoices in & the finance dept sent a refusal letter- fully expected. I saw my MP who first mooted the phrase "distressed sale" ie, he feels that although the PCT or LA had not actually forced me to sell the house,the PCT, by denying funding, put me under so much stress, that I felt compelled to sell the house at a loss because mums savings were depleted. Indeed the Ombudsmans report- states PCT's should return the individual to the position he would have been in had there been no maladministration. My MP wrote to the CE of PCT. I also wrote to the complaints dept _ now called Patient Relation Dept!!!!
Had the expected letter today from CE saying that the PCT did not put me under any pressure therefore is not responsible for any losses. This of course is no more than I expected.
Whats my next step? Is the complaints dept likely to follow my complaint through in the light of the CE's letter, or should I now aggressivlely start to up the ante. I have had no complaints process sent to me, so I'm unsure where to go now.
Any advice or opinions welcome.

Hi KK - following an IRP in Sept last year my MIL was found eligible retrospectively and I have been trying to get back money owed to the estate. The PCT would only apply restitution and not redress so I started out on the PCT's complaint procedure. The were supposed to update me on the situation every two weeks. Here I am nearly a year later and no further on - they continue to prevaricate. Updates do not exist unless I prompt them for updates. I think the only way forward with this is via the Ombudsman.

Regards Smileymiley1

'katykat' - Refusing to provide the care to which your mum was entitled under the Health Act deprived your mother of her statutory rights. This was fraud and anybody who suffers financial loss as a result of fraud is entitled to be returned to their financial position prior to the fraudalent act. You are entitled to recover the market value of the property at the time of the enforced sale or at the time of your mothers death - whichever is the greater.(less, of course, what you actually obtained from the sale)You could add a sum to cover compensation for your distress and inconvenience - and all plus interest (at the County Court rate).
If you are a nhsCCC member you can obtain free initial legal advice and guidance from our own solicitors. You could also file a complaint with the fraud investigation branch of your local constabulary or visit your County Court clerks office and ask them to explain the legal remedies available to you. (They can't give legal advice but they will explain your legal options). You could call the Ombudsmans office and ask if they will assist you. Also I will try to locate other claimants who have recovered losses sustained through enforced and premature disposal of property. Steve.

Thanks Smiley, I fear that I am at the start of the path that you are well travelled.
Steve, I know your advice is sound but I made a pact with myself before I started this & that was that I would hesitate at going down the legal path. Its not that I dont have the determination, rather that I dont have the same drive that I had in the beginning. It seems to have taken a lot out of me. Also, although the fees have been returned, that now goes into mums estate & as my POA is no longer valid because she's deceased, then I dont have the same authority to draw on this money. And I dont have any spare money of my own. It a bit of a catch 22 really. But I'll go as far as I can, I'll know when to stop.

katykat wrote:Is the complaints dept likely to follow my complaint through in the light of the CE's letter, or should I now aggressivlely start to up the ante. I have had no complaints process sent to me, so I'm unsure where to go now.
Any advice or opinions welcome.

Hi KK,

Any complaint you make will be passed through the chain, back to the very person you are complaining about. So the CE will get to draft the next response that complaints department will then send to you. It's a vicious circle. But you should have been given details of the next stage in the formal complaint. Because unless you jump through their hoops, the next stage will be denied you. So complain about not having been given details of the complaints procedure!!!!

My instinct says that it may all depend on the timescale of the whole scene. If you sold the house long before your relative's finances were depleted, that could go against you. It could go in your favour if you received no advice from the LA as to whether or not you needed to sell the house, or whether you could apply to the LA for a discretionary something-or-other (can't remember what it's called now!! but it's some kind of charge that the LA can place against a property via the Land Registry) so that a property could be kept until after the death of the owner, and then there's something like 56 days after death to allow for the sale of it. (Yes, I know it takes longer than that - but that's where the word discretion comes into it, sometimes!)

I don't know whether that discretionary thing should have been offered, or whether it would require you to have asked for it. But I do know that they have to give full reasons for refusing it, if someone does ask for that discretionary 'charge' to be applied.

Sorry, not very helpful, just general info that may or not be of use to you, KK.

VM

KK - Legally the matter is now the responsibility of the executor of the estate so any action could only be financed by the estate with the executors agreement. You need a family conference and the views of the beneficiaries before you can proceed with any recovery action unless of course the police were to undertake a fraud investigation! Steve.

MikeJ - I am simply providing information which is readily available via. the internet and elsewhere. In fact over the 16+ years I have been dealing with continuing care matters I have needed to acquire a fair amount of related legal knowledge. Remember "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when it suits the accuser! Nobody has to take my word for it - the accuracy of any information I provide can easily be checked and I would be the first to advise it!
You may be interested to know that I often get lawyers asking me to clarify points of law for them and I always provide them with the source of my information. There are plenty of legal tomes and copies of parliamentary acts in most reference libraries, which can also be purchased if required from TSO outlets. Steve.

MikeJ wrote:

As for solicitors regularly asking your advice, I can only suggest that anyone who uses a solicitor who has to consult someone who gets their information from the internet isn't dealing with a lawyer experienced enough to handle their case.

Most solicitors who are involved in this section of the law are either pig ignorant, or charlatans. I advise you to read advice about solicitors in the stickies, and if you have time, have a look at the Solicitors From Hell website, where nearly 1,000 solicitors from all over the country have been listed, and includes some well known names.

As I have stated before, some of these listings are possibly questionable, and appear to have few facts to back up what they are claiming. But many do. Charles Dickens for one was not exactly respectful of the legal profession of his day - read Bleak House - and it appears that things have not changed very much.

If a solicitors rings up and asks anyone for advice, then they are free to do so, and could not possibly "drop in" - as you put it - the person being asked. Solicitors ask the advice of so-called expert witnesses all the time, and they are ordinary members of the public for the most part.

It is up to the solicitor to act on what he or she is told, so the onus is on them.

Esquires has ALWAYS claimed that he is NOT a solicitor, but there is no harm whatsoever in stating certain legal points, and then pointing a person in the right direction to check it out. THAT IS THE VERY BEST ADVICE. It is also much, much cheaper than consulting a lawyer for initial advice. The money clock starts ticking as soon as you make that first contact.

From what I have read of your comments, you have just arrived here, and I think you should wait a while until starting to throw your weight around.

By the way,you seem to be claiming that you know quite a lot about the law, so are you a solicitor by any chance, or connected somehow with legal profession ?? I think we should be told.

OK, I am very uncomfortable with the way this thread is going. I didn't want to be the cause of such a disagreement so can we please all calm down a little. I would like to reierate that I dont want to go down the legal route, even this post is making me very jumpy so I dont want to escalate that into court procedings. I merely asked whats my next step in the complaints procedure. I think VM gave me the answer and Smiley gave me the outcome I expect

MikeJ wrote:[

As for Steve's other comments on that thread, don't you think it would be counterproductive to have someone fronting a legal campaign who holds lawyers in such contempt and who rubbishes their expertise in such a public way?

Again, I ask you - are you a solicitor, or have you ever been connected with the legal "profession" ? A very simple question.

As for the Legal Ombudsman, SRA etc, they are fairly useless, and all Ombudsman/woman, have demonstrated that they are nothing more than government stooges.

You have only to read a number of threads here and the people who have gone to the Healthcare Ombudsman, to discover that they are sold an awful lot of waffle, which is totally meaningless.

I am not deliberately attempting to "stir things" but as the stickies advise. when terribly distraught people attempt to get their money back, they can be caught out, and I think ANYONE on this forum should give due warning. It is the old adage - buyer beware.

Too many solicitors have seen the Coughlan and related decisions as a licence to print money, and have - possibly - interpreted the law wrongly. And sadly they couldn't care less.

And they are preying on vulnerable people to do this. As I see it, they then rank among the scum of the earth, and people should be warned.

This is NOT a legal campaign. It is a campaign, that among many things, attempts to advise what to do IF you decide to go to court.

MikeJ wrote:[
Before I commit any time or money to this campaign I want to be assured that it is being run in a completely transparent way and that the solicitors who are involved with it are specialists in continuing care funding / class action issues.

There should not be any problem providing that information publicly in the forum.
MikeJ

So once again, I ask you ARE YOU A SOLICITOR ? And are you using this forum to tout for business? Your questions seem to suggest that YOU should be the one to decide what the law is or is not and just how much do you charge for all this? IF you are an "ordinary member of the public" then your opinion of the law is on equal footing with Esquires. In fact I would go further. If this IS the case, then Esquires opinion is higher, as he has had a great deal of experience in this field.

Oh, by the way, he started out with Mr Derek Cole, who, although retired, was A LAWYER, and was not afraid to say so.

Nearly all on this forum are fighting for a relative who has been swindled by the NHS and others. So please tell us the nature of your link to all this? Are you fighting for a relative, or friend? And we will need some sort of evidence of this. There have been a number of people who have come to this site and have, as it were "slipped under the radar", and have proved to be representing vested interests which most certainly were not friendly to what is being attempted on this website.

This forum is primarily about making people AWARE of the law, and demonstrating that NHS and others are manipulating it against them. It is about FREE healthcare (it says so at the top of this site). It is only now that there is talk about mass action, which I support.

Again I say - and I have had a personal problem with this, and I am not alone - that too many lawyers attempting to operate in this particular section of the law, are either ignorant (possibly deliberately) or outright charlatans.

So once again - ARE YOU MIKE J A SOLICITOR? As you have issued no denial I think it is safe to assume you are, so we now know exactly where you are coming from.

Well said, FinnMickey

Someone else said recently "I don't like the way this thread is going" - can't remember now whether it was this thread or another one. Can't be ar.ed trying to locate it either.

If I posted now that I am a Brain Surgeon turned Accountant turned Solicitor turned Social Worker .... would you have any way of accepting that? Or any way of questioning that? Or even any way of showing that I am not a failed Brain Surgeon (which I am not!!)?

Does it matter what any one of us does in our 'real life'?

Derek J Cole may have taken a legal/law degree, and may be able to add letters to the end of his name, but that doesn't make him a lawyer. I have a couple of qualifications that don't make me a ............. midwife!(Joke!! Joke!!) All it means is that I have done the studying, passed the exams, and got the qualifications that enable me to add those letters to the end of my name. If I choose to do so, of course, which I don't often.

But all it shows is that I've done the studying and the exams. It doesn't indicate that I have ever practised as a .... qualified midwife! (Which I am not, but I hope you get my point.)

For all I know, FinnMickey, you may be a Tax Inspector in your real life. Or a Traffic Warden, a Taxi Driver. Or ..... even a (failed!) Solicitor.

I don't care one way or the other. Any more than I care about what Mike J does for a 'day job'. All I will say is that based on Mike J's posts it has never entered my thinking that he might just be a solcitor. Call me stupid, if you will, but I've just not seen that thought before.

Mike J posted about his involvement with dementia and with trying to find the way through the mire to support his wife and MIL. A couple of years ago now, or thereabouts. But don't hold me to that one, because I haven't gone back to check it all again recently ............ but yes, I did once!! As no doubt anyone does when they want to know more about anyone's background.

I wouldn't dream of asking what anyone on this website does for a means of earning a living.

Or have you been approached, FinnMickey, by anyone touting for business?

Sorry, folks, but I don't see the point in this discussion............... to which I have just contributed.

VM

Victoria Meldrew wrote:

Derek J Cole may have taken a legal/law degree, and may be able to add letters to the end of his name, but that doesn't make him a lawyer. I have a couple of qualifications that don't make me a ............. midwife!(Joke!! Joke!!) All it means is that I have done the studying, passed the exams, and got the qualifications that enable me to add those letters to the end of my name. If I choose to do so, of course, which I don't often.
VM

Derek Cole - and the evidence has been on this site for quite some time - has not only claimed that he was a solicitor, but also fought a county council, and placed his qualifications after his name when he wrote to that local authority.

If this had been all false, a number of organisations - most certainly the Law Society - would have jumped on him, and I believe he would have even been facing a time in court for making false representations. Without looking it up, claiming that you are a practising solicitor is possibly a criminal offence.

As to MikeJ, he seems more concerned with picking a fight with Esquires, then putting his case concerning the medical problems of his own relatives, which I must admit, have only now been brought to my attention.

So I would like more evidence concerning this. Anyone it is true can make up a story on this or any website, but I believe time will tell just where this character really comes from.

So once again, is MikeJ a solicitor? Who does he represent and is he being paid to deliberately sabotage what is going on here? And how much cash is he getting to do all this?

In a way, all of this is very interesting that this should happen at this time, and I believe that a call for mass action has got certain hostile elements rattled, and that makes me very pleased indeed. Great causes have always had great enemies.

So perhaps this website is not on the edges of cyberspace as I thought, and the appearance of MikeJ might just indicate that the other side have decided to hit back, and that will make the best recruiting sergeant for this site.

So keep it up MikeJ as you are really helping to make ensure that mass action will happen as you are undoubtedly helping people to concentrate on this more and more.

Don't get me wrong, Mickey, I never suggested for one moment that Cole was not entitled to put those letters after his name.

He studied; took the exams; passed them. I don't question that for one moment. I have never questioned the fact that he is entitled to use those letters after his name.

But those letters after his name do not mean that he has ever been a 'practising solicitor' at any point.

And the Law Society could not be called upon to veryify his 'degree status' - only Jesus College, Cambridge could do that. The Law Society regulates practising solicitors - not people who have studied for the qualification. (And you can do studying in private, via the Open University, etc etc etc; pass your exams; get the 'ology' but the Law Society would never need to know about that, so could never be asked to verify your qualifications.)

He may be what is called an 'academic lawyer' - meaning that he may never have worked in the world as a practising solicitor.

I've also written my own 'degree status' after my name, on many letters when dealing with local authorities and the NHS and others.

A GP uses the letters "Dr " - that title does not mean that the GP has a PhD. It is a courtesy title, where GPs are concerned.

Great causes have always had great enemies.

Exactly!

But MikeJ has not only just arrived on this bit of cyberspace. He's been around for years - just that you haven't noticed him before now, Mickey.

Any great cause must be tested before it is allowed to call itself 'great'. Tested to destruction? Perhaps. By being questioned as it evolves.

So, perhaps we should indeed say thanks to those who have questions to ask. I am one of those, even though I haven't yet posted all of my questions. Because I'm knackered at the moment ------ but I will get there, eventually, Mickey, I will get there.

Just treat me gently when I do ask my questions - or else I may not get beyond the first one!!!

VM

Ehhh... I was just reading the last few postings on this subject and right in front of my very eyes MikeJ has gone from MikeJ to Guest???? How/why has that happened?

Victoria Meldrew wrote:Someone else said recently "I don't like the way this thread is going" - can't remember now whether it was this thread or another one. Can't be ar.ed trying to locate it either.

VM, I was the one who said that i didn't like the way this post was going, although my exact words were that I felt uncomfortable. It isn't that I would want to deviate from a healthy discussion, rather than I asked for some advice and it exploded into what seems like a stand off between Steve and MikeJ. It all seems to be over now, as I see that MJ's posts have been removed.

[/quote]


VM,. It all seems to be over now, as I see that MJ's posts have been removed. [/quote]

Good. I feel that there is something very suspicious about this person. Been around for years you say? So why has he now suddenly started erupting in this way. Perhaps the best solution could be that he is a "sleeper" ready to take action when necessary. Exaggerated perhaps, but I do not think he was on the side of this forum. He always dodged my questions about his status - was he or was he not a solicitor?

And frankly all this other stuff about practising solicitor is immaterial. Mr Cole and Esquires started this CAMPAIGN as a way of letting people know that they are being stitched up by the establishment, for which they are not asking cash.

And let's face it, they have done remarkable good work here, by switching on a very strong light into some extremely dark places - places as we all know, those in control do not wish us to go, and also want to keep us and the rest of the country in ignorance. It suits them too well.

And now we have this character coming out of no-where suggesting all kinds of things which just might be libellous. MikeJ was getting into some very dangerous territory indeed.

As Esquires has said, he is only testing the strength of a mass/class action. Details of who pays what and when, are way over the horizon at present. Let's find out who is interested, and go on from there. Makes sense to me.

And if, as claimed, MikeJ had some relative in the same kind of difficulties as most on this site, then let us hear more about it. His problems with NHS committees, banding, and reports full of waffle. Which authority did all this. He does not have to reveal his real name, but his details concerning this can always be checked.

I believe MikeJ was here to perform mischief - and that was his only purpose. You can fill in the rest of details yourselves.

katykat wrote:

Victoria Meldrew wrote:Someone else said recently "I don't like the way this thread is going" - can't remember now whether it was this thread or another one. Can't be ar.ed trying to locate it either.

VM, I was the one who said that i didn't like the way this post was going, although my exact words were that I felt uncomfortable. It isn't that I would want to deviate from a healthy discussion, rather than I asked for some advice and it exploded into what seems like a stand off between Steve and MikeJ. It all seems to be over now, as I see that MJ's posts have been removed.

Thanks, KK, I knew it was something like that - sorry, I forgot it was you and on this same thread!! Must be all that rain yesterday/again - I ended up with a soggy brain!!

VM

Pussycat wrote:Ehhh... I was just reading the last few postings on this subject and right in front of my very eyes MikeJ has gone from MikeJ to Guest???? How/why has that happened?

Hi Pussycat - long time no speak - hope all is well with you and yours!

It looks as if MikeJ has been banned, if he's suddenly become a Guest. That's one way of dealing with a problem - but it's not always in the best interests of the forum, but hey ho, Pussycat - what do I know!!

Take care of yourself and keep in touch.

VM

Yes - 'MikeJ' has been banned! I have received several PM's emails and 'phone calls complaining that many of his postings are offensive and completely 'off topic'. I agree! As this forum states, it is dedicated to providing INFORMATION concerning FREE NURSING CARE. It is NOT relevant to the conduct of an inquisition into the 'nhsCCC' particularly as most forum members are NOT 'nhsCCC' members anyway!
For those who are: Registration as a charity is currently under discussion as also is the (alternative) formation of a (Not for profit) 'Public Interest Company' as there is a possibility that the latter would be more conducive to achieving the objective of obtaining 'Free' NHS Continuing Care for all those entitled to receive it as their statutory right. In due course nhsCCC members will be provided with a membership certificate, statement of objectives, details of the directors and audited accounts. I cannot quantify 'in due course' as solicitors and accountants - and the charity commissioners - need to be involved and at this stage I cannot predict timescales or outcomes.
Now - 'Normal Service is Resumed!' and all I ask is that Forum contributions be 'kept clean, polite and courteous and ON TOPIC' Steve.

Hi Pussycat - long time no speak - hope all is well with you and yours!

It looks as if MikeJ has been banned, if he's suddenly become a Guest. That's one way of dealing with a problem - but it's not always in the best interests of the forum, but hey ho, Pussycat - what do I know!!

Take care of yourself and keep in touch.VM



Hi VM I am fine and dandy!! I have been dipping my toes in the water here every now and again to see what's going on, or should I have said whats kicking off !! All seems to have settled down now and normal play has been resumed
Hope all is well with you

I am sorry that MikeJ has been banned. Apart from the fact that I think it is bad policy to silence dissenting voices, I did not see MikeJ as doing anything other than raising important questions, certainly not 'offensive and off topic'. If anything, this action could bounce back against any up-coming campaign, ISTM (and that is on topic).

And before I get banned .... as this forum is dedicated to information about CHC I won't post our good news from our Social Services department, at least until things get back to normal.

maryjo said -
I am sorry that MikeJ has been banned. Apart from the fact that I think it is bad policy to silence dissenting voices, I did not see MikeJ as doing anything other than raising important questions, certainly not 'offensive and off topic'. If anything, this action could bounce back against any up-coming campaign, ISTM (and that is on topic).

I couldn't have put it better myself maryjo - well said!
HK

I do agree with you Maryjo - when we're feeling vulnerable, as a number of us were it was good to have someone prepared to ask questions that would not otherwise have been raised and whilst I feel a little wary of saying so, it is difficult to fully understand the rationale for banning MikeJ and this will probably make everybody quite conscious of what they say in future.
Not really in favour of sending the tanks in until an enemy has positively been identified!
I personally am always extremely grateful for any help & advice given no matter from whom on this site, it's far better than a "deadly silence".
We're fighting for our rights as free citizens of this country and these rights are not exactly what I thought they were from my experiences with the NHS and LA.

Esquires,

Can you please provide an update on the membership certificates please?

http://freenursingcare.findtalk.biz/t1556-ok-whats-my-next-step#14552

This exchange is just one example of why I am reluctant to continue posting on this forum. I have enough trouble with intransigence and arrogance from PCTs, let alone from members of this forum. Either everyone accepts that people post with the best of intentions and to help others or things become very complicated with potential "hidden agendas" and suspicion. For what it is worth, I suspect the best option is to argue with the PCT that they have a conflict of interest in investigating their owm complaint in this matter and suggest an outside investigator.