Dear Mr King
RE: LETTER OF APOLOGY
Thank you for your letter dated 26 June 2017. I am saddened that I must say I cannot accept your very late apology for the following reasons.
Though you have told both the Disability News Service and the Local Government Lawyer that you accept the findings of the court, you did not tell me in your apology. Nor do I see any acknowledgement or apology for the following:
- Your behaviour during the claim process, which has resulted in an award of £2500 for aggravated damages.
- The substantive data protection breaches to my records, which has resulted in an award of £2500 for data protection breaches.
With regards to your stated disappointment at getting it wrong. You appear not to have been disappointed regarding your Service on 14th June 2017, when, you put a request to District Judge Geddes for a supplementary judgement, on the premise that she had got it wrong. Understandably District Judge Geddes is particularly scathing in her response included in the final judgement. I quote:
“Aggravating her distress is the way in which the Defendant used its own mishandled web complaint form as a weapon in its defence (producing the form containing the mishandled data in support of the assertion it made at paragraph 30 of its defence that the Claimant had not filled in section 4), the way in which the Defendant resisted the suggestion of a breach and its continued denial of a data protection liability.” (Para 147 of Final Judgement, Case No 3SP00071)
As a reminder, I enclose the false web complaint form, which you submitted to court in your defence.
Why was a false document created and then submitted to court in your defence? Was this an attempt to deceive the court?
Your statement that you try hard to make appropriate adjustments is undermined by your acceptance of the final judgement and the evidence you provided finally, last year – specifically the Reasonable Adjustments Reports – which showed you have been getting it wrong for at least 87.5% of your sample. Also your target of providing reasonable adjustments since you started measuring has consistently not been achieved. It is harder to gauge that now as you have reduced the frequency of these reports from quarterly to bi-annually.
Your description of the changes you are making is extremely vague. I will point out your staff guidance posted on-line does not show recent updates. The notable change in your reasonable adjustment offer I find shocking, especially as District Judge Geddes said:
“What the Defendant does not appear to recognise is that the Claimant had a right to ask for reasonable adjustments” (Para 125 of Final Judgement, Case No 3SP00071)
And
“it is a striking feature of this case that the Claimant was not asking for anything that the Defendant did not already offer as a possible reasonable adjustment to those needing extra help. It must also follow that the Defendant considers that such adjustments are capable of making a difference generally to people requiring extra help” (Para 88 of Final Judgement, Case No 3SP00071)
I attach the original Reasonable Adjustment Offer and your new one, which was created after the Hearing.
I am particularly concerned that you will restrict access further by arguing that you do not have resources, an argument used in an attempt to deceive the court, with regards to your capacity to provide reasonable adjustments. I remind you, in Court, your representatives admitted they had face to face meetings with council workers. In your guidance you state that your reception areas and interview rooms have been adapted for wheelchair access.
You have a lot more funds and resources than the Personal Support Unit has, who have helped me throughout this case, by making reasonable adjustments. You chose not to.
I am also particularly concerned that you will restrict access further by misleading disabled clients with regard to the definition of substantial disadvantage.
“Substantial Disdavantage means more than trivial or minor.” The Equality and Human Rights Commission code of Practice on Services, Public Function and Association at paragraph 5.10 says this about disadvantage and its associated term detriment:
‘Disadvantage’ is not defined by the Act. It could include denial of an opportunity or choice, deterrence, rejection or exclusion. The courts have found that ‘detriment’, a similar concept, is something that a reasonable person would complain about so an unjustified sense of grievance would not qualify. A disadvantage does not have to be quantifiable and the service user does not have to experience actual loss (economic or otherwise). It is enough that the person can reasonably say that they would have preferred to be treated differently.” (Para 78 of Final Judgement, Case No 3SP00071)
I am also particularly concerned that you will restrict access further by your interpretation of what is reasonable. I am worried that this is an example of how you will avoid similar problems in the future. In response to the Final Judgement I feel the original reasonable adjustment offer must be reinstated and expanded, not reduced. The only difficulty with this document was the failure of your staff to follow it.
What changes do you intend to put into the IT system to stop the deletion and alteration of case histories?
The removal of a client as owner of her records should be impossible and the replacement with another person as owner of those records should be equally impossible. What changes are you putting in place to stop this happening ever again?
The initial complaint must be retained in its original form, unedited and accessible at all times to investigators. What changes have you made to ensure this?
I have not received any evidence that the practise of removing reasonable adjustments from clients’ records has stopped. What changes have you made to your IT sytems to ensure this has happened?
Why did it take until the Hearing to admit that you hadn’t recovered all of the 314 records that were deleted after the Judgement for Specific Disclosure? What technical procedures are going to be put in place to ensure these data breaches do not occur again?
The guidance on-line doesn’t show any changes with regard to this case. What are those changes going to be?
On 15th June 2015 you told North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) that you would be unlikely to take a fresh complaint from me. Is that still the case? If so, it leaves me extremely vulnerable to further injustice by NYCC.
In evidence and on social media it is apparent this has happened to others. What are you going to do for them with regards to reinvestigating their complaints with the reasonable adjustments necessary to enable them to access your service? With correcting their records so that reasonable adjustments are recorded? Are you going to compensate them for their losses due to the failures in your investigations as a consequence of lack of access to your service?
Finally you, Mr King, were Chief Executive throughout my complaint, the actions you accept happened including the submitting of false evidence and the failure to adhere to your duties to provide evidence to court were on your watch. To be frank I feel this service has been fatally compromised by yours and your staffs behaviour.
As for many of us this is our only access to justice now due to the cuts, I feel your services behaviour and attitude is devastating to the many poor and vulnerable people who rely on you for help.
I am extremely worried at the state the Ombudsman service will be in if this continuing attitude continues into the new Public Ombudsman.
I look forward to your reply
Yours sincerely
Jeanine Blamires