MCCH Report Finally Made Available

Earlier this morning Jill Goble sent me a copy of the long overdue MCCH report on the viability of Surrey & Borders Partnership's Old Moat Garden Centre in Surrey.

From just a brief reading I can already see that Sandy Hampson , MCCH's Project Development Manager wrote this report on the back of a lot of Jill Goble's work and I am dismayed that MCCH fails to acknowledge this. I am also saddened by the following claim that Sandy made under the reports Marketing and Advertising heading.

We approached Surrey Community Action for advice with marketing and advertising. They identified a mentor who has been working with Jackie for some months now. His background is that of National Sales Manager for Safeway. Various ideas have been implemented, and are already showing increases in product sales.

I'm saddened because I immediately phoned up the Old Moat Garden Centre to see how it had benefitted from the input of Safeway marketting and sales guru only to be told by two people who BOTH claimed to be managers of the Old Moat Centre, one was the Jacky mentioned above, that the garden centre did not have a website or product catalog.

I cant think of anything that more sadly demonstrates why we have been campaigning as what we have here is a garden centre with two managers but no way of advertising itself online or even a basic catalog and pricing list.

I think a competent independent body not a one time interested party should look at the business and therapeutic potential of the Old Moat Garden Centre again as MCCH's report is biased to the point, as demonstrated above, of being totally misleading.

In my opinion there needs to be less bureaucracy and game playing and more open communication over the future of the centre. In the meantime, I am sure Softools can knock up a basic site for the Old Moat Garden Centre to show that there are no hard feelings all round. Putting together a product catalog should be something the Trust can manage to do on its own.

Old Moat Garden Centre

Report on Viability of externalisation


Background

Sandy Hampson, (Project Development Manager, MCCH) has been working with Surrey PCT and Jackie Connelly at the Old Moat since April, to assess the viability of externalisation from the Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust in April 2007.

A steering group was set up comprising PCT and Social Services commissioning managers, MCCH and Old Moat managers. Individuals from the Trust and MCCH were identified to assist in the key areas of finance, HR, Health and Safety, maintenance and lease issues. Bi-monthly meetings have taken place to review progress.


Key Indicators that are likely to need consideration by interested voluntary sector organisations for externalisation

1. Strategic fit
1. A key issue will be to have confidence that there will be other opportunities to develop other such enterprises, perhaps as part of other modernisation programmes; which will avoid it being isolated, provide economies of scale in terms of management costs and additional career opportunities for staff.
2. It will be important to see where the service fits into the wider ld/mh systems in terms of referrals, potential partnerships and competition.
3. To agree a future that balances the needs of the business to increase income with the needs of each service user to achieve their aspirations, and the needs of the commissioners to achieve specific outcomes; all of which can be compatible but have the potential to conflict.



2. Financial Viability
1. Voluntary sector organisations are unlikely to be able to subsidise the cost of running and managing the service but could seek additional funding from a variety of sources.
2. Any contract would need to recognise and agree how financial risks are dealt with at an early stage.
3. The use of volunteers can augment the service but should not replace professional staff.



3. Lease Agreement
1. Needs to fit with revenue contract
2. Capital could potentially be accessed for purchase, improvements and/or adaptations but the cost would need to be repaid over lifetime of contract (or balance passed on to incoming provider).



4. Contract
1. Terms should be within the spirit of the voluntary sector compact.



5. Principles
1. Service users should be encouraged to actively influence the future direction of the service.
2. A strategy for ensuring that the service supports the employment of service users in line with regulation and good practice should be a cornerstone of the service.
3. It is anticipated that service users will not get stuck in the service but will have opportunities to move on to further training and open employment opportunities



Financial considerations

There are several key indicators that need to be considered and achieved for the Old Moat service to be transferred, but the main concern was initially that of a significant £90k deficit in the original draft budget, and this is one of the key areas we have concentrated on through a variety of measures.

We have reduced the projected deficit down from £90k to £57 in year one by deleting current vacant posts held by the Trust, and by increasing projected sales income through additional marketing and advertising activities, staff sales training and extended opening hours and contract work. The marketing and sales initiatives that have been implemented so far have already shown a positive impact on sales figures, and we project a conservative increase in sales income by 14% annually. This is reflected in the income figures in the draft budget. There will be increased staff and fuel costs associated with any increase in contract work due to the increase in staff hours worked and distance travelled, but we project that the additional income from the contacts will cover these costs.

We hope that there will be new income through placements for transition students from a local school and a 16+ service (estimate reflected in the income figures of the draft budget).

A formal partnership arrangement with the Shaw Trust, if it were to go ahead, could bring in additional income (estimate reflected in the income figures of the draft budget).

There are staffing salary conditions that may incur a further £13,610 pa pressure on the budget due to circumstances of protection, Agenda for Change outcome and volunteer opting to become an employee. We are still awaiting actual figures from HR.

Surrey SSD has indicated that it will not be referring new LD clients to the service, and instead will concentrate referrals to their own day services. We are likely, therefore, to see a decline in spot purchasing by Surrey SSD, and a subsequent reduction in income. The current unit cost based on the number of sessions provided per year is approximately £15.00 per session, or £30 per day. This is a particular concern as Surrey SSD would be considered the most likely source of new referrals and, with an expectation that some people will gain opportunities and move-on from Old Moat this leaves a real prospect of the service becoming unsustainable over time. It is suggested that SSD be approached at a more strategic level to ensure they appreciated the opportunities for their population to benefit from such a valuable resource, particularly as they are charged with modernising their own, in-house services.

Therapeutic Rewards were withdrawn by the NHS Provider Trust in July 2006, and have since been re-instated. MCCH was not involved in any way in either decision but sees the importance of ensuring that the service adopts a model of good practice in this area to ensure that people attending have their rights protected. The Trust has indicated that it will be assessing individual client roles at the Old Moat to identify who is deemed to be training, volunteering or doing work that should be paid at national minimum wage. It is felt important that the responsibility of any decisions taken by the Trust to continue with Therapeutic Awards or introduce a new system will be held and managed appropriately by them as soon as is practicable. MCCH remains prepared to offer its experience in this area where people have been able to move seamlessly to a situation where therapeutic payments can be replaced by proper wages without threat to benefits but with a real outcome of enhanced self-esteem and belief that this can lead to more hope for sustained recovery as we have witnessed elsewhere.

Staffing

The manager post is currently split across 2 services but we have costed this at 1 wte at Old Moat.

The staffing structure will be as follows:

Horticultural Services Manager 1 wte

Tech 2 Instructor 1 wte

Tech 2 Admin 0.56 wte

Tech 3 Instructor 1 wte

Tech 3 Instructor 1 wte

Tech 3 Instructor 1 wte (protected salary)

Tech 3 Instructor 0.47 wte

Bank weekends Ad hoc 05/06 400 hrs p.a.

Details of the driver post are not currently available from HR, but will be contracted for 4 hrs per week on band 2.

We have deleted the current vacant posts held open by the Trust.

Our proposal that the OT post continue for 1 day a week as a secondment from the Trust, to continue with Internal Verifying (IV), and to take forward the implementation of person centred plans and vocational profiling has been rejected by the Trust, as the funding for that post will cease in March 2007. For 05/06 this post used approx 120 hours for IV, which could potentially be picked up by the current manager if she had more capacity. This solution however, relies on the current person remaining in post.

Professional Volunteers are now being engaged to provide mentoring (to JC), and marketing and sales advice and staff training.

Service user opportunities

We recommend that any incoming provider should commit to identify a number of paid work opportunities within the service which service users will be able to apply for on a fixed term contract basis. These will be personal & skills development opportunities, and stepping stones to external employment rather than an end in themselves. This will ensure realistic progression opportunities for everyone who wants to move into open/supported external employment, and will ensure move on through the service so that places become available for new people wanting to access the project.

There is a clear demand for more garden and grounds maintenance in the local and surrounding area which will provide increased opportunities in contract work to more service users. Vegetable gardening will be extended to provide additional opportunities for service users to learn this new skill.

An informal arrangement has been set up with Shaw Trust who will help service users to find employment through their Workstep programme. Additional funding may be available via Shaw Trust (criteria applies) to service users who register on to this scheme to access relevant training courses and other support packages to enhance their chances of gaining successful employment in their chosen field.

Placements could be extended to students from local specialist schools (currently in discussion with a local school to pilot a scheme with Old Moat), which would enable 10 young students under 16 years with special needs to experience a horticulture learning environment for 6 weeks with the support of their teachers on site. Older students, 16-18 years, would also be able to access the service, with the option of completing an NVQ in approx a 2 year period. There is currently no indication from the school as to how many other young people may be interested in referral, however, the income shown in the draft budget assumes the continuation of placements at the level currently under negotiation. This is not guaranteed.

A 16+ service working with young people who are in, or are leaving Local Authority care has expressed an interest in working with Old Moat, and a young person has been referred on a 6 week assessment basis. If appropriate, we would be looking to offer the 2 year NVQ programme. There are currently no indications as to how many other young people may be interested in referral, however, the income shown in the draft budget assumes the continuation of placements at the level currently under negotiation. This is not guaranteed.


Additional funding streams

We have explored various additional income options which could potentially be achieved. Whilst these have been included in the income in the draft budget, it must be noted that none of this income is guaranteed, and will be dependent on the continuation of current Government training and employment programmes, local priorities, levels of funding and referrals.

On-going discussions with Surrey LSC have currently drawn a blank, although there may be opportunities to work with them as a direct provider to deliver NVQs once they have reviewed and distributed their tender specification in the near future. In the meantime Old Moat will continue to work with East Surrey College to deliver NVQs for a nominal income.

Initial enquiries to the Lottery Fund were about on going revenue costs, which they do not fund.

We have worked independently, and with Surrey Voluntary Services to research and approach various grant making trusts and foundations, but they are not able to consider applications due to the present status of the Old Moat. If it transferred to a voluntary sector organisation, it would be eligible to submit applications, however there are very few organisations which will fund revenue costs. Applications could be made for staffing costs for specific ‘new’ projects which can add value, and provide new opportunities.

An LDDF application for funding for a vehicle for offsite contract work was unsuccessful as there was no funding available for capital bids, although this information was not in the specification, and they more crucially would not fund a project with a mix of mental health and learning disability clients.

Our Fundraising Manager has also been researching alternative funding options, but has also found that the status of the project currently disqualifies it from submitting any applications.


Partnerships

Old Moat already works with Employability, where appropriate, to provide progression into employment for its LD service users.

The Shaw Trust provides training and employment support for disabled clients. Shaw Trust is currently working with the Old Moat to provide support for its service users and if a formal arrangement were to be agreed, the service could benefit from some additional income.

We have yet to explore the possibilities of how we could work with commercial garden centres.


Marketing and Advertising

We approached Surrey Community Action for advice with marketing and advertising. They identified a mentor who has been working with Jackie for some months now. His background is that of National Sales Manager for Safeway. Various ideas have been implemented, and are already showing increases in product sales. Marketing and advertising initiatives will continue, with increased product ranges, special deals and loyalty schemes. We will also look at sponsorship through other commercial garden centres and local organisations.

On going statistical analysis will be carried out to identify the number of customers, spend per day, spend by department/floor area, impact of marketing activity etc as an evaluation of new initiatives, and to ensure optimum gain from customer visits.

There is further planned development of new housing in the immediate area, and a leaflet drop will be a priority to those new houses with gardens that will need landscaping. It will be important to use volunteers to ensure a wider coverage of publicity.


Social Enterprise

We met with the Social Enterprise Adviser from Surrey Community Action to discuss the option of Old Moat becoming a Social Enterprise. His view was that the Old Moat as a model has the potential to develop into a true Social Enterprise, and would be willing to work with the service further on this if it becomes a viable option. There are, however, serious concerns around the level of income that would be need to be generated in order to sustain the garden centre as a social enterprise when it has relatively high overheads, which would inevitably increase the conflict between the centre needing to be business focussed and achieve challenging sales targets, but retain it’s training and support function.


Lease/maintenance

We have had site visits by a Health & Safety Advisor and Maintenance Advisor. Reports from both of these visits are attached at appendix 2. They have identified a number of areas of concern in relation to maintenance and health & safety. In addition there are issues regarding accessibility, and non-compliance with the DDA. In depth, detailed costings have not been done but on initial findings the costs for remedial action amount to approximately £32K.

The Trust allocated a manager to look at different options for the lease, which included providing rear vehicular access. Following a recent meeting, we have received feedback on this, however there are no costings available.

In order to reduce the deficit further, we recommended that the premises could be leased for a peppercorn rent of £1. In addition, it was proposed that the maintenance responsibility (labour and materials) be retained by the Trust. This proposal would have allowed the Trust to hand over the management and development of the service and the staff, whilst retaining a relatively small cost in relation to the site and the maintenance. These proposals have initially been rejected as the Trust do not see themselves as being the best placed provider to the small level of work services that will remain with them and they have no plans to retain any financial responsibility for any transferred work services after April 07.

The Barn is still a possible conversion project to a small business, however with the extremely high costs associated with conversion of a listed building we have looked externally for potential interest. We have passed the details to Business Link Surrey and they will give the information to any potential businesses that are looking for premises in the area.



Summary

In order to achieve the desired outcome of externalisation, the critical factor is the reduction of the budget deficit. However, the following proposals put to the Trust have been rejected:

* A peppercorn rent of £1 for years 1 – 3
* Provide all maintenance and repairs to the premises at their cost for years 1 - 3
* Second an OT post 1 day a week for the life of the contract



However, the PCT has confirmed that it could cover the projected budget deficit during years 1 - 3 to enable an external provider to identify and secure additional income streams in order to be financially sustainable from year 4.

It must again be noted that the income from Shaw Trust, 16+ service and local schools shown in the draft budget is not guaranteed, therefore leaving a further question mark over the financial viability of this budget. Any future grant income that may be successfully bid for would be time limited, and would therefore not be a secure or long term solution.

In short, the project is seen as offering excellent opportunities for people; it has the potential to develop more therapeutic outcomes for people attending and for more people; it can balance the business side without compromising the individual needs of people attending; it can attract additional funds; but…

…we believe this can only occur if the PCT continues to underwrite the risk and subsidise the deficit between income generation and the proper cost of providing such a service; that the individual payments to people attending are regularised so they are in line with good practice; that the SSD commissioners also see this service as an opportunity to modernise their day services and agree to open it up to their managers in terms of referrals.

We commend the PCT for working so hard to ensure the service can survive in spite of funding pressures and trust a way can be found to ensure it can further develop and thrive in the longer term.


Sandy Hampson

Project Development Manager, MCCH January 2007

Still Waiting

Jill Goble has been desperately trying to get Surrey PCT, MCCH and the Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust to provide a copy of MCCH's Report on the future of the Old Moat Garden Centre. As Fiona Edwards has already discussed its conclusions and recomendations with the carer of one of the garden centre workers she has entered into private agreement with perhaps its time that other service users and the public got to learn what is going to happen to the garden centre.

Jill Goble has also requested a copy of the oft quoted viability report on the garden centre, the one that limits business options, as a Freedom of Information request. Again there is a long history of FOIA requests being ignored both by the Surrey PCT and the Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust. The charities involved in this bungled so called ' Modernisation ' of SABP's work services - MCCH , Richmond Fellowship and the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health - are simply not professionally accountable to anyone so its no suprise that they are keeping so tight lipped.

MCCH's motto by the way is " Making Life Happen"

Provision of MCCH Report Delayed Again & FOIA Request for Viability Report

From Jill Goble


Subject Re: Richmond Fellowship and MCCH Ltd Contracts



Dear Dianne Pullin and Diane Woods

Thankyou for your mail of the 7/2/07 below and the response from Diane Woods I received also below.

It is now over the 2 weeks that I am told in the response that the MCCH report would be made available to me. Could you please send the report to me immediately or if it is still unavailable tell me why there is a further delay and exactly when I can receive the report?

In the response below Diane Wood states:

"The option to keep the Old Moat as an NHS service and to be managed and run by service users has been considered. Options that have been considered for the services are: Social Enterprise, Social Firm, Closure, Remain with Surrey and Borders Partnership, transfer to Voluntary Sector. The viability report shows that the deficit that the service currently works with and is projected for the next 3 years is too high a risk for the service to take off as a social enterprise or firm status and so is not a viable option."

Could you please give me details of the 'viability report' mentioned above. Is it in the public domain? Can I have a copy of this viability report if necessary as a Freedom of Information request.?

I have other comments to make on this response but would prefer to make these once I have seen the MCCH report so could you please send it urgently.

Regards

Jill Goble

http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/


Dear Ms Goble

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

I am responding following your e-mail of the 25th January where you are concerned that you have not received a response to your FOI request in October. There has obviously been some confusion as I forwarded by post to your address in Brighton the RFET contract and the Public Consultation and Outcome document that was done regarding all of these services that address the majority of the questions. I reattach these for your information and have broken down your questions and answered them below.

With regards to your request for the MCCH viability report on the Old Moat. There has been further information that needed to be sought in order for this report to be completed. The Commissioning Group met and received a draft report from MCCH this week and this will be available in 1-2 weeks following the inclusion of comments received from this meeting. I will forward this to you at that point.

The answers to the further questions you have raised are:

What Opportunities Will There Be for Further Consultation?

Public consultation took place last year. Local targeted consultation will take place with the service and the current service users on the outcome of the viability report and the recommendation for the Old Moat put forward from the Commissioning Group.

Will It Be Possible to Make Representation Concerning Alternative Options for Old Moat, &, Will the Option to Keep the Old Moat as an NHS service and managed and run by service users be considered?

This work has had, and remains to have local service user, staff, current provider and health and social care commissioning representation throughout the work. The option to keep the Old Moat as an NHS service and to be managed and run by service users has been considered. Options that have been considered for the services are: Social Enterprise, Social Firm, Closure, Remain with Surrey and Borders Partnership, transfer to Voluntary Sector. The viability report shows that the deficit that the service currently works with and is projected for the next 3 years is too high a risk for the service to take off as a social enterprise or firm status and so is not a viable option. It was agreed at the beginning of the work that with the externalisation of the services that Surrey and Borders Partnership would no longer have the expertise and appropriate infrastructure to support these services in the manner that they require to modernise and develop and so remaining with them in the medium to long term is not a viable option. This leaves 2 options; closure or transfer to voluntary sector. Throughout this work it has been an aim to avoid closure for services that were reviewed in line with national guidelines as appropriate to develop. The Old Moat is in line with this guidance and so we would not, where possible, wish to move to closure. This leaves the transfer to voluntary sector as the preferred option. However the service has been running with a deficit and more work was required to source further funding support and opportunities to reduce this gap and demonstrate viability. This is what has been taking place through 2006. There has been identification of new sources for funding and the PCT are able to put in a level of extra funding for a period of three years. The new sources of funding have not been totally secured as yet and so final financial calculations will take place as soon as this has been completed. If this shows to be successful and the consultation with the service and it's service users approve the recommendation then the preferred option of transfer to the voluntary sector will be taken forward.

What Group of Staff Will Be Responsible For Awarding the Contract

Surrey PCT Mental Health Commissioning will be the organisation and staff responsible for awarding the contract.

Are the WSOG Reports Made Public

These are minutes of the meeting not reports and do not get posted onto a public website

How is the Contract with RFET going To Be Monitored

There are regular monitoring meetings against the service specifications and outcomes. The frequency of these, the terms and manner in which they occur, and what is monitored is described within the contract that is attached. This is the template contract that the PCT use for all of the supported employment, social firm and community connections contracts in eastern Surrey.

Funding Concern for RFET

RFET funding for other services outside of Surrey are not connected to Surrey PCT funding. Surrey PCT funding is governed by the specific contract between Surrey PCT and RFET as attached.

Surrey County Council

In Surrey there has been aligned commissioning between health and social care in mental health. This means that we work to joint aims and approach strategic work and service development together. The work and day service review was jointly commissioned and the organisations are still pursuing a Section 31 for the commissioning budgets for these services.

Yours sincerely

Diane Woods

Director of Commissioning

Mental Health and Learning Disability

Reading Material

River


I always take Charlie for a midnight walk along the riverfront and nowadays these late walks are the only times I feel at peace with myself on the island. I read somewhere that we originally came from the sea so maybe thats why so many people feel such an affinity with water. I love the river. Maybe I'm part fish. I definitely seem to be part everything else. I've always been surrounded by water. From the womb onwards. I like the darkness of night too because when it falls we are all naturally colour-blind.


It s also easier to think and reflect at night. Come on Charlie. Forward.

I was born on the Isle of Dogs in East London shortly after my parents arrived here as unwelcome refugees from Bangladesh in 1971. Leah on the other hand was born blind in Leeds in 1973 and never knew who her real parents were so I often wonder what people mean when they talk about accident of birth.

What's accidental about it? Having no conscious choice in the matter or the consciousness it gives rise to?

Yeah, I know some kids are born brain dead but regular people seem to go out of their way to develop that condition in later life and never fucking notice. Shadfield Social Services certainly seemed to employ a lot of braindead people who treated people like Leah as permanent accidents.

I first met Leah when the council employed me as her Home Care Assistant in 1991 and that wasn't exactly an accident either as back then, as now ,the council had a strict policy of targetting all it's shit jobs at the Bangldeshi community. To be honest , I didnt feel particularly caring or Bangldeshi at the time but a shit job is better than no job so I took out my earings, left my biker jacket at home , turned up for the interview and a week later started to train to do basic housework and wipe peoples arses.

My first client was an old guy called Ron who'd been paralysed in an accident in the Millwall docks when he was in his thirties. Apparently a crate of bananas being unloaded from a ship had dropped from the crane and broken his back. Ron was very bitter and anti-everyone and everything because he couldnt do anything for himself except talk, think and blink but we got on ok until his family, who hardly visited him anyway, insisted that they wanted someone white to look after their dad . It didn't bother me that much as I was used to it but I think old Ron was gutted as he had someone, maybe the white guy who replaced me, write me a letter with a ten pound note stuffed in it aplogising for what had happened and wishing me well. I spent the money on dope and never got round to replying.

Leah was my second client. Leah was white too yet her greatest disability was not her blindness but the fact that she'd grown up being shunted to and fro between various Care Homes and Special Schools.in different parts of the country. That's what my manager had told me anyway. Leah had ended up in a groundfloor council flat on the Isle of Dogs following some scandal at the her last place in Hertfordshire. Apparently, the home was shut down. The official line was that the move and a home of her own would encourage Leah to lead a more independent life in the community instead of becoming
completely institutionalised. On the other hand, the fact that she had absolutely no fucking ties to the local community meant that at least we had something in common as belonging had never been my strong point either.

On the first day I went to Leah's flat it was obvious that she was uncomfortable with me being there. After a while it really started to bother me so I just came out with it and told her that I was only doing the job because I needed the fucking money and felt even more uncomfortable with the situation than she did . She didnt react one way or the other, so I then suggested that maybe we should take her dog out for a walk and just look around the island. Jesus, I felt so embarassed the moment I realised what I'd said but Leah didn't take offence she just laughed and said I had a funny accent. It obviously wasn't the first time Leah had had to deal with someone who took seeing for granted but my stupid mistake broke the ice a little and at least got her out of the flat.

Back then Charlie was Leah's eyes and he was almost as fearful and jumpy as she was as he hated being couped up in the flat as he'd been trained to be a guide dog not a couch potato. After a while Leah got to appreciate our walks too. She also liked talking and it was like having an ordinary conversation was something completely new to her and I was totally fucking amazed by the things she didnt seem to know. Normal, everyday things. Simple things you just expect people to know, like how much things cost, what friends are for and how fucking pointless it is to sleep all day long. Real obvious things that soon had me asking myself and then Leah awkward questions.

Over the following months Leah opened up more and more and then one afternoon after we had returned to the flat with Charlie after walking along the riverfront as far as the Greenwich foot tunnel and back, and stopping off for a quick pint midway , she suddenly started to tell me about the
abuse she'd been subjected to. Up until then I'd thought her eyes looked the empty way they did because she was blind and that's what blind peoples eyes
looked like but it wasn't that at all, because as she sat facing me telling me everything, I realised her eyes simply looked dead because they were a
visible painful record of everything the bastards had done to her. But Leah didnt cry as she described what she'd been subjected to and how long it had gone on for.


Not once.


In fact, it came across as if Leah was calmly describing things that had happened to someone else, a Leah who was present as we spoke but not her.
Emotionally, I really didnt know what to feel about what Leah told me because I knew I felt so fucking angry it shut me down, which was just as well as I
instinctively knew that all she wanted and needed me to do more than anything else was listen.

Later when she was talked out Leah asked about me. I knew she wanted the truth so I didnt even try to bulshit her , I simply told her how I'd never been
able to identify with my family because I wasnt like them and how my life had been one long struggle and shit ever since my mum and dad had kicked me out of the house and disowned me because I fucked up at school and got in trouble with the police. I also told her about all the stupid 'Paki' stuff - yeah geography has never been the racists strongpoint - I'd had to put up with from a lot of the white and black kids on the island I imagined I had a lot in common with and how difficult I still found it trying to just be me in a place where other people, including other Bangladeshis had viewed or actually tried to force me to be someone or something I wasn't.

It was strange, saying all this to this white girl who couldn't even see the cause of most of my problems. It was stranger still for her to be telling me about her terrible problems as if normally I'd give a shit but despite myself I found that I did care and felt really sad that Leah had been fucked up far more than I had.The fact was, I knew nothing she'd been through was accidental whereas I'd always been vaguely aware of the consequences of a lot of the choices I had or hadn t made, yet the choices that had shaped her life had been made by the very people paid and trusted to see that she grew up fully prepared and able to make as many choices as she possibly could for herself.

That afternoon I recognised that , as deep as it went, I simply felt sorry for myself for making all the wrong choices whereas it was Leah, not me, who had
deliberately been denied the right to grow into herself and belong. In short, Leah had alerted me to my blindness.

Being around Leah through my job, you could say I felt overprotective towards her, and maybe I did feel that way at first, but as we grew closer over time we
openly talked about what was happening between us as a matter of course. There was also a sense in which Leah started to protect me from the shitty world I knew and what I'd become, it wasn't all one way, we just seemed to find missing parts of ourselves in each other but when the Social Services Department caught on ten months later that I had, in official terms, flagrantly abused the professional carer/client relationship, I was hauled up in front of the deputy director, immediatly suspended without pay and warned to stay away from Leah or face a court injunction.

We had no idea who'd blabbed - it certainly wasnt Charlie - but I'd always expected fireworks, we both had.however as we'd been completely open and up front with each other it was the sheer hypocracy of it all that got me as Maureen Myers, the Deputy Director of Shadfield Social Services wasn' t the slightest bit concerned about Leah at all she was simply looking out for the department. I called Myers a fucking hypocrite , told her to stuff the job and said if she had any genuine concerns about the relationship then she should call the police, adding that while she was at it, she should ask them to investigate how Leahhad been systematically sexually abused while in the Care of other Social Services departments down the years and why she had had ended up in a previously unlettable ground floor flat on the worst council estate on the Isle of Dogs in the first place .

Far from seeming shocked or in any way moved by my outburst Myers simply made a phone call and had two bastards from security frogmarch me out into the street.

When I continued to see Leah the Social Services department promtly sent round an in-house counsellor to ' talk ' to her and when she failed to provide the answers he wanted he submitted a report to Social Services suggesting that Leah had significant learning difficulties. The Department then attempted to make Leah a ward of the court and take out an injunction against me contacting her or coming within a half a mile of her flat.

We got legal aid to hire a local solicitor to fight the action.

Amazingly, the whole Social Services case turned on allegations and official evidence suggesting sexual exploitation on my part - people who can't see can't possibly make informed choices about sex right?- which was a real home goal as our affidavits made it quite clear , rather Mr Ryan the lawyer who had actually drafted them had, that we had never had sex precisely because Leah found it so difficult to deal with the sexual abuse she'd lived through. Mr Ryan took another statement from Leah, and she still didnt cry but shortly before the scheduled hearing Shadfield Social Services backed down and withdrew the case.

Even so, we had to move out of the flat to escape the unwelcome visits of yet more prying Social Workers.


As we had nowhere else to go and werent about to throw ourselves back on the mercy of the council, Leah, Charlie and I squatted a large groundfloor flat in an empty maisonette block over in Mudshute not far from the city farm. The block was due for demolition but Shadfield Council never got around to it so Leah and I lived there for about 18 months and it was beautiful. It meant going back to living on benefits but someone from the local advice centre helped us get an additional Carers Allowance - about half of my previous wage - so we got by.

In the Mudshute flat we created our own little world and decorated it with wonderful things you could feel as well as see and only let in those people we wanted to share it with. We also got married - we didnt want any of the legal shennanigans again - and had a frantic half hour in the street outside Shadfield registry office trying to pressgang the two witnesses required by law. In the end, we bribed two miserably sober looking drunks who celebrated the wedding reception with Charlie and us in the Rose and Crown pub next door. Leah also got a taste of real independence when - on the advice of a friend of Mr Ryan's - she enrolled on a sculpture course at the local college,

It turned out Leah had a real talent for seeing and shaping things with her hands and it wasnt long before her work started to attract attention. The squat had a spare room so we turned it into Leah's studio and suddenly the house was full of people talking about commissions and exhibitions.

I was also managing to turn my hand to some landscape gardening so things were really looking up. Even Charlie got caught up in all the excitement and was off bounding round the house and wildly chasing his tail every time someone new knocked at the door, Then as suddenly as Leah' s new purpose in life had arrived the whole Mudshute world cracked like dry plaster and everything started to disintergrate and slip away.

It s no accident that the river carved out this island, it's still doing it, it's dark waters simply seek out and wash away the weakest elements of whatever stands in its path and surge relentlessly on. I guess Nature has no time for accidents or words either .It just is and what happens happens in spite of our grand theories. Nature just fucking resists our attempts to contain it.

That's why the doctors who diagnosed Leah's Leukaemia when she complained of constantly feeling tired that summer could not explain why she - as opposed to anyone else - had developed it. The best they could do was describe what it was and how the millions of white blood cells that were rapidly reproducing themselves inside her body were forcing Leah's life out of her.

Charlie hid under the sofa and growled when Leah's hair started to fall out following the chemotherapy so we had to go out shopping for a hat. Leah wouldnt setlle for anything less than a wide brimmed Pink number because my favourite colour was pink so we spent about three days traipsing round every
department store and second hand shop and market in London until I found a pink one Leah liked the feel of. I told her she looked outrageous wearing it but Leah loved it so much she slept in it. But soon beneath that bright pink outrageous hat I started noticing Leah's beautiful skin yellowing and
tightening and smelling of wet metal. Maybe thats what had thrown Charlie, that smell.

Anyway, the chemotherapy proved useless.

In the garden one night, after we'd had a few friends round for a barbeque and they'd all left we sat at a candlelit table in the overgrown communal garden we had to ourselves and Leah suddenly said, 'Hussain, we're all dying, l'm just dying a little faster and sooner than you babe, please look after yourself the way you have me when I go'. I promised I would but immediately went back into the kitchen to refill our glasses and cry. Leah had always been so strong I just wanted to spare her hearing me break down but when I returned with our drinks she saw how I felt with her ears and I saw tears of pure love falling from her eyes and I suddenly hated myself for being such a coward and leaving her alone.
.
Leah wanted to stay at home as long she could, so we would sit up at night holding each other in the garden and later in our candle-lit scented bedroom , with Leah bravely fighting against the pain and the sickening side effects of the drugs, and me struggling against my selfish feelings and certain loss, each of us trying to condense an eternity of feeling and purpose into every last shared moment. But there was no way of prolonging the short time we had left together, as time was still flowing by so I just watched on helplessly as the woman I loved and needed beyond anything else in the universe slipped further and further away from us both.
.
When the medication became pointless and the pain unbearable the doctors decided Leah should be taken to hospital even though she had begged me and the authorities to let her die at home. I wanted to object but I felt powerless before their arguments that 'it was for the best ' so l just let myself be led out of the house by the arm, believing that it probably was.

In the ambulance Charlie whined and Leah's hands suddenly felt smaller and colder in mine. At the hospital two orderlies were waiting
in the car park to meet the ambulance. I looked up at the hospital , a huge grey bricked Victorian fortress and back at the two orderlies and suddenly started to think about what they were thinking about, how much they were paid and what Leah had told me that aftenoon so many months before.

Sometimes life throws up terrible choices and squeezes evey thing else out. When it does we just have to decide what's right and wrong there and then
and live with it. One of the orderlies kindly phoned a taxi for us but I was so afraid Leah would die on the way home. But she didnt, Leah clung to life and I
to her for 3 more days and just before she died in my arms in the Mudshute flat she whispered to me , " I can see the sun beneath my feet now Hussain " and for a moment I saw that life giving star flicker in her eyes then fade.

A week later, just before sunset as she'd requested, I lovingly carried Leah's ashes in the beautiful pink urn she'd made for the purpose down to the pier opposite Greenwich and scattered them in the outgoing tide and watched them drift downstream towards the sea. Then I again read the words she'd struggled so hard to inscribe on the side of the urn just before she'd lost the use of her hands, " To hold on to me you must let go "

Come on Charlie, home.

Resistance is Futile Earthlings, Socially Exclude yourselves

I noticed from my Flickr account today that Resistance ,the above pic linked to the Justice for Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust Garden Centre Workers Campaign blog, rather than my photographs had had the most single viewings which left me with mixed feelings really.

The viewing figures showed that a lot of people cared about Surrey and Borders exploiting their own service users but it also told me that Dr Bob Groves and his allegedly world leading employment team at the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health are never going to socially include me as a photographer no matter how much employment focussed Cognitive Behavoiral Therapy they lash out on me.

In fact I asked another member of the SCMH team , Professor Jenny Secker for information on how a friend of mine , a fellow MH service user and really good artist could get help training to be an art therapist. Her mum asked me to as a favour.

I didnt even get an answer from, Secker! who, when it suits her, claims to have MH issues herself..

So there you have it, the Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust draws public attention to itself through exploiting its disabled workers and the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health team along with MCCH and the other MH charities involved talk up work and training and social inclusion but beyond training people to be ' Trolley Wallies' in Sainsbury's most of these claims are politically correct hot air paid for out of the public purse.

SCMH and MCCH are on a nice little earner though - no consequences for badly screwing things up even - and even Surrey & Borders Chief Executive Fiona Edwards can get her hubby's firm SOFTOOLS some cushtie work and/or free advertising behind the scenes even though SOFTOOLS claims to have improved efficency , performance and best practice at Surrey & Borders is clearly a load of baloney .


This pair certainly seem to have Socially Included themselves though!!!.


Then there's the well paid freelance consultancy work for Chris Carter, apparently SABP's Interim Director of Communications, who didnt even hang round long enough for the ink on the cheque to dry let alone to talk to SABP's critics as she promised to do at the pre AGM Board meeting last year.

Throw in some meaningless and unlawful consultation stage managed by Surrey & Borders and SCMH's unscrupulous managers and suddenly Social Exclusion starts looking more and more attaractive to this official top down corrupt web of exploitation, backhanders and lies?

Spot the Difference

Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust Chief Executive Fiona Edwards appears to have acknowledged the conflct of interest of her husband using work undertaken for her publicly funded Trust as a Case Study on the website of the commercial SOFTOOLS firm he co-founded.

The SOFTOOLS website changed overnight with all references to the Surrey and Borders NHS Trust Fiona Edwards manages being removed but Andrew Edwards is still not professionally acknowledging his relationship to Fiona although his firm is still , without mentioning it by name , using work undertaken at wife's Trust as a Case Study.

So, this:

suddenly changed to this:

and the Surrey & Borders related Surrey PCT's logo here on Softools Welcome Page


Suddenly vanished from Softools Welcome page

Possibly due to the fact that Fiona had not bothered to tell her husband that the East Surrey PCT merged with the Surrey PCT back in October 2006.

Wonder if Softools are getting any more lucrative NHS work in the Surrey area as Fiona is still hiring the Old Moat Garden Centre Workers at £3 a day...

Strangely enough , that ' valued ' business doesnt even have a website anymore.

The Machine is Using Us

While we wait for Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust's Chief Executive Fiona Edwards to draw her husband's attention to the glaring conflict of interest in him using work at her Trust as a Case Study on his firms SOFTOOLS commercial website here's a really interesting video from Michael Wesch .

Choice to Heavy a Burden for Some

Some doctors are up in arms over the Government's plans to launch a new NHS CHOICE website this summer which as well as offering information about patient care and choosing which hospitals to be treated at will include a section given over to reviews and performance ratings submitted by patients, rather similar to the Patient Opinion website

Dismissing the exercise as a ' gimmick' Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of the British Medical Association's GP's Committee said

" This seems a bit superficial and rather typical of this Governments policy. People tend to go to these things when they have complaints rather than when they are satisfied (and...?) so it may to favour the complainers rather than those in favour".

The CHOICE website will act as a gateway to other NHS services and in addidition to providing information will allow users to leave reviews.

The Department of Health believes the website will encourage doctors and hospital managers to improve their performance if they receive bad reports.A Department
spokesman said, ' The exact specifics are yet to be agreed upon . It will develop over time to provide a comprehensive resource for patients.

Feel free to give Surrey & Borders NHS Trust glowing reports .

Source Computeractive

Long Overdue Response to Jill Goble from Surrey PCT

Dear Ms Goble

Please find attached letter from Diane Woods in response to your email of 25th January. ( asking what had happened to FOIA request made in October 2006 - Ed ) Also attached are the RFET Contract, the Public Consultation document and Outcome document.

Regards

Dianne Pullin

PA to Diane Woods, Director of Commissioning for Surrey Mental Health and Learning Disability Surrey PCT, East Surrey locality St John's Court, 51 St John's Road, Redhill, Surrey RH1 6DS DD : 01737 214848 Switchboard : 01737 780209

Dear Ms Goble

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

I am responding following your e-mail of the 25th January where you are concerned that you have not received a response to your FOI request in October. There has obviously been some confusion as I forwarded by post to your address in Brighton the RFET contract and the Public Consultation and Outcome document that was done regarding all of these services that address the majority of the questions. I reattach these for your information and have broken down your questions and answered them below.

With regards to your request for the MCCH viability report on the Old Moat. There has been further information that needed to be sought in order for this report to be completed. The Commissioning Group met and received a draft report from MCCH this week and this will be available in 1-2 weeks following the inclusion of comments received from this meeting. I will forward this to you at that point.

The answers to the further questions you have raised are:

1. What Opportunities Will There Be for Further Consultation?

Public consultation took place last year. Local targeted consultation will take place with the service and the current service users on the outcome of the viability report and the recommendation for the Old Moat put forward from the Commissioning Group.

2. Will It Be Possible to Make Representation Concerning Alternative Options for Old Moat, &, Will the Option to Keep the Old Moat as an NHS service and managed and run by service users be considered?

This work has had, and remains to have local service user, staff, current provider and health and social care commissioning representation throughout the work. The option to keep the Old Moat as an NHS service and to be managed and run by service users has been considered. Options that have been considered for the services are: Social Enterprise, Social Firm, Closure, Remain with Surrey and Borders Partnership, transfer to Voluntary Sector. The viability report shows that the deficit that the service currently works with and is projected for the next 3 years is too high a risk for the service to take off as a social enterprise or firm status and so is not a viable option. It was agreed at the beginning of the work that with the externalisation of the services that Surrey and Borders Partnership would no longer have the expertise and appropriate infrastructure to support these services in the manner that they require to modernise and develop and so remaining with them in the medium to long term is not a viable option. This leaves 2 options; closure or transfer to voluntary sector. Throughout this work it has been an aim to avoid closure for services that were reviewed in line with national guidelines as appropriate to develop. The Old Moat is in line with this guidance and so we would not, where possible, wish to move to closure. This leaves the transfer to voluntary sector as the preferred option. However the service has been running with a deficit and more work was required to source further funding support and opportunities to reduce this gap and demonstrate viability. This is what has been taking place through 2006. There has been identification of new sources for funding and the PCT are able to put in a level of extra funding for a period of three years. The new sources of funding have not been totally secured as yet and so final financial calculations will take place as soon as this has been completed. If this shows to be successful and the consultation with the service and it’s service users approve the recommendation then the preferred option of transfer to the voluntary sector will be taken forward.

3. What Group of Staff Will Be Responsible For Awarding the Contract

Surrey PCT Mental Health Commissioning will be the organisation and staff responsible for awarding the contract.

4. Are the WSOG Reports Made Public

These are minutes of the meeting not reports and do not get posted onto a public website

5. How is the Contract with RFET going To Be Monitored

There are regular monitoring meetings against the service specifications and outcomes. The frequency of these, the terms and manner in which they occur, and what is monitored is described within the contract that is attached. This is the template contract that the PCT use for all of the supported employment, social firm and community connections contracts in eastern Surrey.

6. Funding Concern for RFET

RFET funding for other services outside of Surrey are not connected to Surrey PCT funding. Surrey PCT funding is governed by the specific contract between Surrey PCT and RFET as attached.

7. Surrey County Council

In Surrey there has been aligned commissioning between health and social care in mental health. This means that we work to joint aims and approach strategic work and service development together. The work and day service review was jointly commissioned and the organisations are still pursuing a Section 31 for the commissioning budgets for these services.



Yours sincerely



Diane Woods

Director of Commissioning

Mental Health and Learning Disability

Email : dianne.pullin@surreypct.nhs.uk

NHS in Crisis, Edwards Family Doing Very Well.

Jill Goble has informed me that despite receiving an e-mail from Dianne Woods formerly of East Surrey PCT but now with Surrey PCT assuring her that her Freedom of Information request, dating back to October 2006, would be answered by ' end of play ' yesterday, she still hasnt heard anything.

I informed Jill that Fiona Edwards , Chief Executive of the Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust was also jerking me around over my FOIA requests , playing bureaucratic games to further drag things out just because she can.

Jill has flagged up conflicting interests between Helen Lockett, MCCH and the Surrey and Borders Partnership Trust which have been ignored by the Surrey & Borders PPI Forum and the PCT's related to the Trust.

I think the following information helps explain Fiona Edwards reluctance to come clean about ripping her Trust's disabled garden centre workers off as she appears to view her position within the Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust as a bit of a family business.

Click on images to enlarge and for perspective please remember that this campaign started when Fiona Edwards decided to approve cutting the pitiful £3 a day her Trust's disabled garden workers were paid and have them work for nothing.



Here is SofTools homepage - note the DWP and East Surrey PCT contracts, even though the latter has now been amalgamated within the Surrey PCT. Note as well as being out of date the SofTools site isnt fully accessible.

This is interesting too.

Company Register Information
Company Number: 03571184 Date of Incorporation:27/05/1998
Company Name: SOFTOOLS LIMITED
Registered Office: 17 BISHAM VILLAGE, MARLOW
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
BUCKS
SL7 1RR
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Status: Active
Nature Of Business (SIC(92)): 7221 - Software publishing

Key Filing Dates

Accounting Reference Date: 31/05

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2006 (TOTAL EXEMPTION FULL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/03/2008
Last Return Made Up To: 27/05/2006
Next Return Due: 24/06/2007

Last members list: 27/05/2006

Last Bulk Shareholders List: Not available
Current Appointments

DIRECTOR: BRUCE, ANDREW JAMES
Appointed: 27/05/1998 Date of Birth: 21/09/1959
Nationality: BRITISH
No. of Company appointments: 4

Address: 17 BISHAM VILLAGE
BISHAM
MARLOW
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
SL7 1RR

DIRECTOR: EDWARDS, MARK ANDREW
Appointed: 01/07/1999 Date of Birth: 29/11/1968
Nationality: BRITISH
No. of Company appointments: 4
Address: COURT BARN HEYWOOD FARM ( not exactly living in squalour then )
WALTHAM ROAD
MAIDENHEAD
BERKSHIRE
SL6 3LL

Directors Renumeration for 2006 £143656

And still keeping it in the family, there's this:



So, Fiona Edwards the Chief Executive of the Surrey and Borders NHS Trust agrees to cut pathetic £3 a day payments to her Trust's disabled workers and have them work for nothing without even consulting them but has absolutely no objections to helping network work to her husbands firm and/or imposing huge costs on taxpayers with the bungled externalisation of her Trust's work services, a project which also appeared to be designed to transfer payments and /or assets to organisations which also have serious undeclared conflicting interests.



Softools states:

SofTools applications deliver three business benefits to clients:

# increased senior management visibility and control of operating performance
# improved operational effectiveness and efficiency through the consistent application of best practice
# continuous learning and knowledge sharing across diverse teams

Softools hasnt exactly given the taxpayer value for money here then, has it! Anyone noticed an increase in management visibility or performance?

We've seen a lot of over anxious top down control and spin but little else.

Has anyone noticed an improvement in operational effectiveness , efficiency and best practice?

Hardly, with Fiona instructing her staff to deliberately obstruct complaints and FOIA requests from service users and members of the public.

Has there been any continuous learning and knowledge sharing across teams?

Eh, nope all have had to be repeatedly reminded to address FOIA requests and/or provide other basic information and Fiona Edwards herself appears to have networked this deliberate obstructiveness to the PCT's and PPI Forum as well to ensure that service users and members of the public , who have put forward constructive suggestions for improving performance, are kept in the dark.

The Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust claimed it had the best disability employment advice available yet it completely botched its ' modernisation ' of the Old Moat Garden centre , alienated service users and the general public and the Trust and PCT now threaten - yes, Fiona has been selectively 'honest' about sharing information with a few individuals - to close the garden centre rather than seek real independent business advice to use the vaulable resource for the good of service users and the local community.

Fiona Edwards had Jill Goble and a Professor of Ethics and Business Mnagaement write to her requesting that the Trust and PCT do this yet this was ignored presumably because the garden centre issue was already a done deal.

This is fair comment.

Slideshow to Cheer People Up

As the Chief executive and mananagement of the Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust appear to have descended into their bunker again thought it would be more relaxing to display a slideshow of my pics on Flickr rather than fret about their latest antics. Relax and enjoy and remember, dont let the b*******s grind you down.



If you are having trouble viewing with Internet Explorer watch Slideshow here.

Tennyson Road Update

Lat month we reported how Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust didnt have a monopoly on deliberately dithering over and delaying decisions at the expense of vunerable people and we can now report that thanks to the publicity raised about the threatened closure of the Tennyson Road residential home for people with MH issues by the Dunstable on Sunday newspaper including a scathing letter from fellow blogger Mandy who regularly comments on this blog, a decision has been made , albeit only a temporary one at the moment, to keep the Tennyson Road residential care home open.

Well done!

Its amazing what a little publicity can do to influence useless bureaucrats who excel in aquiring public money for themselves and making reckless and uncaring decisions in secret.

Response to Fiona Edwards , CEO of Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust

Sigh! I have just received the following e-mail from Fiona Edwards , CEO of the Surrey & Borders Partnership Trust.

What Fiona appears to be saying is that she and her staff do not have to act professionally or inside the law when dealing with Freedom of Information Requests from service users and members of the public as they can keep dodging their responsibilities by bureaucratic means as there are no consequences for them jerking people around like this.

Unfortunately, from the moment Ms Edwards and her managers voted behind the scenes to cut their disabled workers pitiful £3 a day payments without even consulting them and have them work for nothing they have been on a hiding to nothing and blaming everyone but themselves for their dumb and horrendously expensive PR disaster.

It seems Ms Edwards was never taught its bad form to rip off people less able and fortunate than herself. Ditto for Cawsey . Now, after taking more expensive advice from the Trust's lawyers , these two obviously think enough time has passed to start messing people around with their bureaucratic nonsense again.

Wilhelmina Cox
PA to the Chairman and Chief Executive
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust
18 Mole Business Park
Leatherhead
Surrey KT22 7AD

Tel 01372 205821 Email: Wilhelmina.cox@sabp.nhs.uk

Our Ref FE/wc 2 February 2007

Dear Des Curley

Further to your email of 24th December to Wilhelmina Cox, you have raised a number of concerns about the way in which your FOIA requests have been dealt with, including the alleged distortion contained in my letter to Jill Goble.

Additionally you have also requested a formal apology and recompense for your time in submitting your FOIA requests and asked that this be acknowledged as a formal complaint.

FOIA requests fall outside the NHS (Complaints) Regulations. However if you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your FOIA requests, you have the right to appeal and in the first instance, this should be to the Head of Healthcare Systems, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust, Elaine Gould on 01737 281046 or Elaine.Gould@sabp.nhs.uk

It is my recommendation therefore that we consider your e-mail of the 24th December as an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act. This would be forwarded to Elaine Gould, Head of Healthcare Systems to investigate.

If you are still not satisfied with the outcome you can write to the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, Telephone No: 01625 545700.

I would be grateful of your confirmation to proceed in this manner.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely
Fiona Edwards
Chief Executive

Copy: Elaine Gould