We understand that this illustrious woman was brought in from Westminster during early 2000’s to ‘whip the place into shape’. we are told.
This Social Worker was at the time of F’s assessment RBKC’s Director of Adult Social Care and their Caldicott Guardian.
Two Appeal cases were brought so far during her reign.
- McDonald v RBKC which deals with assessment for the provision of a carer to enable Ms McDonald to access toilet during the night.
Comments on this case by the Supreme Court Blogger.
2. Savva v RBKC dealing with the format of a decision letter relating to the calculation of care allowance.
This case is discussed on many websites, but Land Mark Chambers is of interest
It reiterates the Appeal Judgement that: “It was appreciated that some recipients required more complicated arrangements which would call for more expansive reasoning but if that was what fairness required, it had to be done. Further, it was for the panel to provide or approve the reasons in a document. Any other means of communication would lack the necessary authority and consistency.”
It is F’s opinion that the ruling in this case is a ‘precedent’ relating to the format of letters about how decisions are arrived at. The letters should not refer the reader to anything else, they should be self-contained, explaining the methodology behind the decisions.
Mr Williams’ ‘ a dead-end’, re-assessment ‘decision letter’ to F was at odds with the Appeal ruling. The letter failed to provide him with an explanation of how the decision to deprive him of funding was arrived at.
Both of the Appeal cases feature in the 12th edition of Brayne Carr’s “Law for Social Workers”. Both cases are of interest. It is not the intent of this Blog to make a comment; this is open for the readers to make. The only comment we would make is that both cases do not enhance RBKC’s reputation in respect of human needs and fairness. Depriving individuals of better quality of life, well being and independence.
Of particular note is the handling of Mayor Jim Vicker’s concerns. These were highlighted on the GRENFELL website, as as well as the FTHN, linked in on Grenfell site. There is NO need to add anything else, as the matter is well addressed on these sites.
Of interest is the Health Care Professionals Council’s (HCPC) statement on 23rd July 2013, in relation to F’s complaint about his Social Worker’s role in the disclosure of F’s HIV relevant information.
The HCPC stated that “member of the RBKC’s legal department disclosed information to the LGO” and that “Process and procedures for both handling and sharing information at RBKC is flawed. Matter for RBKC, not the HCPC.“
In respect of the first part of the statement, how did the legal department get hold of F’s HIV information, without the presence of appropriate legal document, compelling Mr Leak to provide this information.
In respect of the 2nd element, it clearly shows that Ms Baillie failed to ensure that proper controls were in place in respect of service users’ information.
As she knows very well herself, as a Social Worker, it is the responsibility of the Social Worker, and indeed his professional legal obligation to ‘keep individual’s information confidential and safe at all times.’
In this respect, access to F’s information should have been under the exclusive control and responsibility of Mr Leak. Had the information been in a paper file, it would be kept under a lock and key at all times.
Due to the modern electronic recording of this kind of information, it should still be the Social Worker’s duty to ensure that access is limited to himself and those he may delegate, rather than any Tom, Dick, Harry and itinerant bottle washer, as is the case at RBKC.
It is incomprehensible how on Earth, individuals, who are nothing more than Council pen pushers, without any professional responsibilities had access to Fs files.
HCPC claim that it is RBKC’s fault is incorrect. The RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE SOCIAL WORKER.
Was Ms Baillie aware of Ms Parker’s offer on 25th November 2014, to delete F’s HIV related information and the absurd conditions attached to this process?
In respect of ‘whipping the place into order’, she has a free hand to do as she feels fit. From the available evidence, you can decide whether she is, as she should be as a Social Worker, looking primarily after the interests and needs of her clients, rather than wholeheartedly enforces her employer’s wishes….
One thing is certain: there is no internal or external independent oversight of any kind. Ms Baillie and RBKC as a whole can do as they feel fit, without any fear of retribution. Should the Social Workers not like what is required from them, they can move on. And they do — evidenced by high turn-over of Social Workers not only at RBKC, but also in the industry as a whole. F has at least six different Social Workers during a six-year period.
It was under this woman’s leadership that the ‘Staying Put Small Projects‘ scheme was shut down, apparently due to lack of funding. Yet, RBKC can find the hundreds of thousands of £ to support the third-rate operatic venue at Holland Park, catering to the pretentious lot, who can hardly tell a soprano from a contralto. To some extent depriving the needy, often elderly disabled silent minority of contributions towards better quality of their lives, wellbeing and independence. Shameful, but sadly, very true.
It emerged only recently that an elderly disabled woman was housed on the 18th floor of Grenfell Tower, where she perished. Ms Baillie was the Director of Adult Social Care at the time of her rehousing.
This vulnerable lady was most probably asphyxiated by cyanide smoke, generated by molten ASBESTOS, present in the Tower. She, like many others, was cremated alive.
Only in September 2018 it was decided that the NHS should begin monitoring anyone involved in the fire, for signs of ASBESTOS caused health problems.
It should be appreciated that the ghost of the Tower is entirely clad in protective material. Not only to hide the extent of the disaster, but ALSO to ensure that any ASBESTOS dust particles do not get airborne and inhaled by incidental passers by.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, as this has bearing on the creation of this Blog, it was Ms Baillie, who told F in April 2010, without any justification that RBKC would henceforth stop their contribution of £ 40 per week towards the cost of F’s domestic help.
When F asked for justification and filled in the missing information on Ms Baillies notice, that he was swiftly offered FINANCIAL assessment.
F was surprised when the funding was not only reinstated, but increased by a small amount. However, this was NOT to last long. Ms Baillie, having realised that his April 2010 threat had failed, instigated a new RE-ASSESSMENT, to be carried out by a Social Worker, not qualified to do so. The incomplete, unverified and unsigned ASAQ assessment document was used to deprive F of his contribution. F was not even aware of the existence of the assessment document, let alone invited to complete it, verify it and sign it.
As F was NOT even given a copy of the ASAQ, his complaints were based on an equally faulty form, the FACE Report.
Had F not asked for and received, the NEVER SEEN BEFORE ASAQ, which was hidden among the other 148 documents sent to the LGO, he would have never learned of its existence
It can be alleged that Ms Baillie FINALLY succeeded in her effort to deprive F of his contribution.
What would Ms Jane Addams, considered to be the founder of Social Care, think about this woman? Most probably aghast and be turning in her grave, on realising that this amoral woman infiltrated the ranks of the noble profession of Social Workers, to follow her warped personal agenda, depriving many needy, at times elderly residents of RBKC, of better quality of life, wellbeing and independence. The sorry matter exacerbated by the fact that she can now enjoy a GOLD PLATED PENSION, paid for by the very same residents, she deprived on comfort. Sickening and proving that NOTHING has changed at the Horton Hall . Decide for yourself……