ASAQ signature

When F discovered that his FACE, and  all of his Care Plan Reviews were unsigned, he queried the documents veracity and reliability.

F asked Mr Leak, the Adult Social Care Social Workers’ Team Leader about the missing signature on the FACE Report.   F was told that it was NOT necessary to have the document signed, as a ‘Social Worker was present.’

Even at this late time,F was NOT aware of the ASAQ’s existence.  He was under the impression, which was carefully made by RBKC that FACE was the ‘assessment document’.  When in fact, it was NOT.

Trying to get an independent confirmation,  F searched for legal justification for signatures.  As he could not find any information online, he asked Professor Chalmers, who told F  In his reply  that there is no legislation relating to  what should be signed.

However, it would always be advisable for any documents to be signed, if they are requested to be so, to protect both parties.

The content of the documents would be legally sound, as long as all parties agree on the content.  It becomes problematic when one of the parties disputes the veracity/credibility  of the content, as is the question on the unsigned  document, it has  become legally unsafe and might be a subject of litigation by either party.

The Disability Law Advisory Agency advised that an unsigned assessment document is unsafe, as the answers could be questioned.  Therefore, such a worthless document should NEVER be used in a decision making process, involving the individual’s well-being, quality of life and independence.

The illustrious RBKC’s ‘assessment panel’ should have rejected the ASAQ, until F signed it.

When the LGO  came to consider  the documents sent to him by RBKC,  he should have realised that the ASAQ was unsigned  commented on this unsafe document. This did not happen. 

When F told the LGO about the unsigned ASAQ, which had surfaced for the first time, and was not known at the time of the original compliant, he LGO rejected  his concern, on the grounds that it was NOT presented with the original complaint.  How absurd, however  quite understandable, as any comments from the LGO  might have created unwelcome situation for RBKC, which is NOT in LGO’s remit.

Had F  not asked for the copies,  which he received on 11th February 2012,  he would remain unaware of the ASAQ’s existence.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.