SBD - There seems to be a bit missing from your posting!
It starts: 'their reason being that there's been a court case for unpaid contributions, which they won.'
Perhaps this is the fault of my own PC - could you please advise?

This was a totally perverse judgement in my view and I will email you direct on the matter. Steve

The 'bit that was missing' was the title 'LA have refused to look onto complaint'. That's the way I saw it anyway .

SBT - I will email you direct once I have checked some legal points with the Campaign solicitors. Steve.

Hello SBD

Can I be of any help to you advice wise. I will be in over next few hours so I will be on line.

Will send you a PM on how to contact me should you wish to.

Very Kind Regards Ian

Hello SBD

Let me try to understand this you have issued a complaint to the LA over errors in the way they have dealt with your case. Apparently on the grounds that because you have been taken to court and you lost there isnt anything further to be gained by investigating your complaint.

SS should do a lot more in challenging the PCTs decisions on refusal to fund especially on cases that are borderline, but they dont do as a rule. If there are things that both the PCT and the LA/SS should have done and didnt do in your case or did that was against their own guidelines then your complaint is still ongoing.

Some of which depending on what is the actual basis of your complaint could still be aired at your IPR.

But at the IRP meeting the complaint must revolve around the NF and its guidelines. It will not regard questions or points of law to be relevent at that meeting. The only exception being in relation to Coughlan because it is mentioned in their official guidelines.

To be honest you shouldnt have witheld paying care fees it isnt a good strategy any more. The way they handled it

it is the reason why it isnt a good idea. They will take you to court and if you have any form of authority over your loved ones affairs especially financial they have the powers by law to revoke that authority if specific grounds are present. Unfortunately for you and others like you non-payment of fees is one such reason.

The situation is worse now because of the growing power of The Court of Protection.

If you want info on them I can supply you with it, or you can contact newspapers such as The Daily Mail, Daily orExpress, Mail ON Sunday, etc who all have had big feature articles on how powerful this court it.
The journalists involved will clearly tell you how little chance you stand of keeping your POA if you are in breach of law relating to paying.

Very kind regards Ian

Even the 'CoP' must obey the law - they cannot make it up to suit their own agenda! The 'News of the World' (deceased) produced an excellent feature about a year ago which showed just how corrupt the CoP really is! Anyone got a copy - or link? Steve.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Steve appears to have changed his settings - so we can't tell when he is here or when he last visited.

Re silence of the lambs. Should we stop bleating and have the wool pulled over our eyes? Its Ok, you can tell me to flock off if you want to, I've herd enough of all this.

Brillaint Sillysally, brilliant.Ewe know what your bleating on about!!

Hello Steve

Somewhere I have got a copy of that article and many others. Yes the COP is corrupt and that is why so very often it doesnt answer to the law of the land.

Might be wrong and if I am hopefully someone will correct me. But I thought the judges werent openly appointed?

Might try to get in touch with someone like Brian Garish ( probably spelt his name wrong ) friend of Tony Gosling and Ian Crane, they would spell out the truth about The Court of Protection to you, they are experts on it.

Also on The Family Courts.

Ian

Esquires wrote:Even the 'CoP' must obey the law - they cannot make it up to suit their own agenda! The 'News of the World' (deceased) produced an excellent feature about a year ago which showed just how corrupt the CoP really is! Anyone got a copy - or link? Steve.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9eJG6fmXP0

Here's just one example. There are others if googled.

SBD - As you have posted this matter on the forum I assume that you are happy to have your private business discussed in this same venue.

I emailed Mark concerning your, and other outstanding cases, on 3rd. February as I was unable to contact him by 'phone. Having not received any response I again emailed him and a reply is awaited.
You are of course free to act without my assistance as you see fit.
Steve.

Hi SBD - When I originally commented on your case I did so in reply to your forum email. All members should refrain from posting ANY personal information on this or any other forum. You don't know who will read it and to what use it may be put!
I have still not received a reply from Mark and will call him once again later today. I will email you direct with his response - if any!
You and other forum members may be interested to know that I have received 'strictly confidential' information advising that the DoH have issued instructions to NHS managers to decline continuing care claims pending resolution of the current 'Health and Social Care' legislation question. They obviously believe that the Bill will let them off the hook by sanctioning the refusal of long term care to the vast majority. This would enable them to save 'the £Billions currently wasted on elderly care' Current claims could still be pursued of course - unless they make any such edict retrospective! Steve.