Trust Plays Games with patients and members of the public

Following the public outcry and complaints over the Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust's decision to cut the £3 a day payments to disabled workers in its commercial garden centre the Trust is now dithering to avoid explaining its conduct in the light of a written statement made to the local Patient & Public Involvment Forum confirming that the Trust felt that as of policy ' service users should be paid for their time'.

In reality, the Trust clearly feels that only some service users should be paid for their time as the garden centre workers payments were axed and they were forced to work for nothing simply to ensure that the Trust could strike a quick deal with the Richmond Fellowship, an organisation which had bid to take over the running of the garden centre but did not want to pay anything to the disabled workers the Trust planned to hand over with it. To cement the deal, payments to the workers were 'modernised' away.

This deal is unlawful as the garden centre workers were not meaningfully consulted over the change of ownership and what the changes to the service would mean for them, that their £3 a day payments would be cut and under the new 'modernised ' service, they would be expected to work for nothing. Surrey & Borders had a legal duty to meaningfully consult and there are moves afoot to have its dealings with the Richmond Fellowship judicially Reviewed.

Instead of quickly admitting its mistake , reinstating and backdating the payments and engaging in meaningful consultation with the garden centre workers over the future of the garden centre service Surrey and Borders NHS Trust is now using pathetic excuses and delaying tactics to avoid providing explanations at all. For example , some people who have complained about this matter havent received responses from the Trust while others are being provided with lame excuses that just result in delay after delay.

Most recently Janet Buckall , Peter Kinsey's PA wrote to a number of complainants to say that Mr Kinsey could not reply because he wasnt in the office to sign and despatch the letter . This did not stop Janet quicklu sending out the following for Kinsey when people originally complained to the Trust, indeed she lost no time in despatching this pack of lies for him.

From: Janet Buckell
To: mandy, paul, des,jill, mike
Date: Jun 8, 2006 2:08 PM
Subject: Therapeutic Earnings

Re: Changes to Employment Services for People with Mental Health Problems Managed by Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust

Thank you for emailing me to express your views regarding this matter. This is a local issue in eastern Surrey which we are discussing with our stake-holders. Changes to therapeutic payments are part of a larger change project which we are undertaking to modernise and improve employment services for people with mental health problems in line with recognised best practice. Those changes have been discussed extensively with our staff and people who use our services.



Peter Kinsey



Janet Buckell

PA to Peter Kinsey

It also appears that the Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust and its PPI are coordinating their responses with PPI Manager Margaret Clarke seeming just as eager to distract , obscure and drag out issues as Janet Buckall and the now almost permanently absent Mr Kinsey.

PPI Forums are supposed to be independent and yet the Surrey & Borders PPI let the garden centre deal go through on the nod . The PPI never questioned the workers having their pay cut and being expected to work for nothing even though they were well aware that the Trust was publicly stating that service users should be paid for their time.

When asked about this amazing oversight Margaret Clark claimed it was not the PPI's responsibility to explain contradictory Trust policy.

No Ms Clark, its the PPI's job to ensure that Surrey & Border's apllies and adheres to its policies in a fair and consistent way, its not your job to turn a blind eye to help save a shoddy unlawful deal with the Richmond Fellowship which the Trust had no right to impose at the garden centre workers expense in the first place.

Ms Clarke has since been persuaded to reconsider her orginal procedurally incorrect response and has now agreed to provide an explanation for the Surrey & Borders PPI forum's moral blindness.

Dont hold your breath waiting for it to arrive though.