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.