When F received copies of his never seen before Care Plan Reviews and the October 2010 Assessment, he found that NONE were signed by him.
F asked Mr Leak why F was NOT asked to verify and sign the ASAQ. He was told that as a Social Worker was present, it was NOT necessary for F to sign it, confirming veracity of his answers. This would suggest that other individuals were also NOT asked to verify and sign their ASAQ’s.
This might also suggest that not only F’s ASAQ but that of others may have been competed whenever, by whomever and wherever, without the assessed individual being aware. The ASAQ scored to reflect the desired outcome/total.
F asked the Disability Law Advice centre about this matter. He was told that unverified and UNSIGNED assessment document IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON AND SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN USED IN AN ASSESSMENT PROCESS, as it is unsafe and unreliable.
As F could not find any information, on 29th July 2014, he asked senior Professor in Law about this point.
Professor Chalmer’s reply is interesting. It is clear that RBKC by not asking anyone to sign their documents, expose themselves to criticism and inability to prove that the documents were completed in the individual’s presence.
Mr Leak may have been right, but the caveat here is that, as long as the document remains UNSIGNED, BOTH parties MUST be SATISFIED with the answers. However, as soon as either party disputes them, the documents becomes legally unsafe, as there is NO proof that the service user had seen the document, let alone agreed with its content.
This situation is avoided, by simply NOT giving the service user a copy of the Review. Job done.
He sent a number of FOI Requests to local authorities, regarding the necessity for a signature of the Care Plan Reviews. From the replies received, the one from Waltham Forest on 16th July 2015 is a typical reply. It states that the service users get two copies of their Reviews; they are asked to sign one, confirming veracity of the information.