ABUSE OF POWER?!

Dear Sir [ Peter Scandrett]

DATES FOR MEETING POSTPONED

Am interested in getting justice from yourselves. Where people
communicate with me fairly[ dyspraxic] not wind up or try to delay
with the maladministration of process .
We have shown that This Mr Sykes never spoke to me once making up a
fictional case.
I have a legal expert witness who has also been given run around
too, and ,now some person called a Business Manager - Claire
,hasn't the decency to speak to me and as appears to be never
there!
So would like several dates, so it can be organised for a fair
discussion by those who can resolve and are ethical NOT ON REMITS
or CONTRACT as I don't want to have to litigate for professional
negligence as at least 3/4 persons have messed about with this case
causing my evidence to be destroyed ??!!

Yours faithfully,

Julie Shrive

Dear Scandrett, Peter,

This is outrageous as you totally concocted fictitious report & as
a result it was agreed could have a meeting back in April.We now
have a Court deliberately destroying evidence . How corrupt does it
have to get .

Now suffering civil liberties abuse and severe financial and health
loss . Fortunately this time doing through legal expert witness.So
request that this internal review is oral as dyspraxic and is with
nobody on contract or remit to maladministrate.

Yours sincerely,

Julie Shrive

Dear Scandrett, Peter,

This is professional and medical negligence with NO DUTY OF CARE.
You were contacted by phone this week re this by me and legal rep
still you do not record truth no wonder can't investigate it. . You
have had case 3- 4 x and complied with their delaying tactics to
defraud even further.

Yours sincerely,

Julie Shrive

Dear Scandrett, Peter,

SO request internal review as your deliberate and delayed
maladministrationhas has caused years of work severe financial and
health lossand SEVERE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
------ Forwarded Message
From: Julie Shrive <[email address]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:58:34 +0100
To: <[email address]>
Conversation: Our Ref: 7013296/PS/M403 - Miss J Shrive's complaint
about Simplyhealth Access
Subject: Re: Our Ref: 7013296/PS/M403 - Miss J Shrive's complaint
about Simplyhealth Access

Just altered the odd thing . This is ok now thanks.Also a reminder
about a meeting with you & different individual is therefore needed
. The delays caused by them maladministrating their Complaints
procedure with Ombudsman and Advocate colluding needs to be pointed
out. Thanks

JULIE SHRIVE -22 TRINDER RD, CROUCH HILL,LONDON N19 4QU- 0207 686
4073

Dear Mr Sykes,
>
> Thank you for the letter dated 31st March 2009. Miss Shrive's
comments are
> as follows:
> 1) Miss Shrive has been a teacher until she had to cease work
because of her
> various health problems affecting her mobility. Her medical
conditions
> therefore require that HSA has employees, who are trained to deal
with
> someone, who understands the condition of dyspraxia and the
resultant
> communication problems. She suffers from dyspraxia, which makes
> communication, as well as writing very difficult for her with
regards to
> sequencing and making herself clear. Prior to this, Miss Shrive
had an H S A
> Cash Plan through work, since the 80s through Barnet LA, which
lapsed for
> 3-4 years when Miss Shrive had to retire in 1996.

> 2) Miss Shrive suffers from multiple health problems that up to
1997 (when
> she had only claimed once on the Cash Plan she took out in 1980s
> were well controlled. She was early retired because of the policy
of not
> giving antibiotics for chronic conditions . She also lived on a
boundary, which made finding a GP difficult when forced back into
Islington .

> 3) The complaint has been wrongly summarised and as a result is
unfair. The
> fact that it is assumed Miss Shrive's complaint was about some
referrals, is
> not the main complaint. Miss Shrive's complaint is that HSA as a
health care
> insurance provider has got a duty pursuant to the Disability
Equality Duty
> and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and should not have
terminated her
> policy as a result of its duties and not as they claim because
Miss Shrive
> is abusive when they refused to honour her claims, despite taking
monthly
> payments for the Personal Plan for 9 months and the other 6
months and 3
> months. The Ombudsman whom she had contacted three times in
regards to this
> has taken HSA's side. Miss Shrive feels that she is not given a
fair
> hearing. Not once in the last resume has this been mentioned that
she
> already contacted the Ombudsman prior to this in connection with
the same
> problem. She also feels that there has been much delay which
appears organised .
> 4) Miss Shrive had taken out the Personal Medical Plan when she
was sent
> unsolicited mail from HSA, probably because of shared information
based on
> her Cash Plan when Miss Shrive had just turned 60.

> 5) She took out a Dental Plan after the Personal Medical due to
the need for
> continuing dental work and in particular because the NHS policy
of not
> undertaking anaesthetic, which Miss Shrive requires due to her
complex
> medical problems, one of which is CFS fibromyalgia where gums
function as
> trigger point.
> 6) Additionally, Miss Shrive's complaint is that HS A had taken
money for 3
> policies, one a Personal Medical Plan taken out in July
especially for her
> heart but HSA only allowed her to claim on a couple of visits to
the
> retiring (in the same year) Dr Vecht, who used faulty equipment,
i.e. a
> portable echocardiogram monitor, which fell off. The 48 hour
monitor his
> then successor gave to Miss Shrive fell off again and the
successor then
> terminated the appointment, despite the echocardiogram not having
being
> undertaken.
> 7) HSA had agreed to the appointment after Miss Shrive suffered
from an
> acute cardiac infarction in October 2006, but nevertheless she
was only
> allowed the appointment with Dr Vecht and much later the
successor.
> 8) Hence, the Personal Medical Plan was no plan as after Miss
Shrive was
> sent to the Specialist, Dr Vecht,she was sent back to the GPs and
his then successor.
> 9) When it was found out that Miss Shrive had abnormal sleep
studies, H
> SA directed her back to the GP and to the local NHS Specialist,
who was also
> working in the private sector at the same time, who refused to
refer her to
> an apnea specialist whom she saw under her Cash Plan. Not only
was apnea
> found, but also lately on NHS low blood pressure, but again this
was ignored because of her weight.
> 10) Miss Shrive also had to see another heart Doctor via her Cash
Plan but
> it became her own arrangement, which ought to have been covered
under the
> Personal Medical plan, as this covers specialist advice in
relation to DLA
> mobility and lack of physical help. The purpose was to obtain an
> interpretation of a treadmill test shge had had done on her own ,
but he refused to interpret it, despite Miss Shrive confirming that
he would provide an interpretation before arranging the
appointment. He wanted to do an echocardiogram first, which the NHS
had delayed because of the need to get a NHS appointment, as the
one carried out by Dr Vecht could not be used. HSA declined to
honour the appointment
> 11) Another doctor, which Miss Shrive eferred herself to via HSA
as could only use her Cash PLAN was Dr
> Collinson, who refused a follow up appointment and just
reiterated what she
> told him when she had severe pins and needles and numbness that
her GPs
> were disregarding (one of which is now suspended by the GMC).
> 12) Claims had also been made via the Cash Plan for further
investigation of
> her hamaturia, which had been found by Urodynamics, but again
this was
> ignored when a NHS cystoscopy found nothing and appointments were
curtailed
> by the NHS.
> 13) When Miss Shrive tried to address the above matters and point
out that
> the few referrals she was permitted after much agony finding
receipts &
> collating the information (due to her dizziness/ and CFS medical
condition
> as Miss Shrive has difficulties with writing and the claim forms
are
> certainly not friendly towards disabled individuals, HSA were
very unhelpful
> towards her. She was then suddenly labelled abusive. Miss Shrive
was left
> waiting at the phone, put on hold, provoked and made fun off, and
the
> extract now provided (though not provided to Miss Shrive to
verify the
> contents), therefore only appears to constitute selected and
edited
> conversations out of contexts e.g. previous calls are not
provided, hence,
> the information provided is without the proper context of what
happened.
> 14) Nevertheless, HS A deducted money from Miss Shrive's account
monthly for
> all three plans, never returning any money when she requested
this . This is what they were calling abusive. Miss
> Shrive was upset, but not abusive because she was refused a
second opinion.
> Instead she was conveniently labelled abusive and also her
complaint to HSA
> was maladminstrated and delayed.. HS A continued taking money,
causing her
> to see doctors and dentists on the cash plan many of which they
refused to honour especoially the Dental [ only one] .
> 15) In relation to the Private Medical plan, the policy provides
that ongoing
> treatment will be paid, but she was nevertheless refused her
treatment,
> despite the fact that Miss Shrive's needed a coordinated approach
with not a
> different specialist each time.She has been blamed for this.
> 16) Miss Shrive has been pursued for costs despite the fact that
her
> personal medical plan ought to cover her. For example she saw Dr
Collinson
> on the Cash Plan prior to the cut off point set by HSA for
terminating the
> policy, but the doctor did not send the bill on time (despite
Miss Shrive
> chasing for it) or him following up, and HSA therefore refused to
pay for
> the referral, despite the fact that there was a postal strike and
this
> having been caused solely by a third party, i.e. the doctor.
> 17) Miss Shrive believes that the name "plan" is a wrong trading
description
> if one is only allowed one off appointments, but is then not
allowed to
> claim after first 3 - 4 months (as there is no advantage over
normal NHS
> treatment). This is even more so the case in light of the fact
that Miss
> Shrive had not even claimed fact for over 10 years prior to 1996.
> 18) Miss Shrive has contacted the Ombudsman and has lots of
further
> evidence, however, it is extremely difficult for her to arrange
it and for
> the purpose of giving Miss Shrive a fair chance of putting her
case forward,
> because of the remits and procedures of a call centre structure,
which makes
> it extremely user unfriendly for Miss Shrive, I therefore ask for
a meeting
> to take place, so that she can fully explain the case, as it is
unfair to
> request a disabled person to comply with the same criteria as a
healthy
> person, especially when the Ombudsman appears to be similarly
structured as
> HSA, i.e. not having a person there, who is able to appreciate
her medical
> conditions as a disabled. A lot of her distress was that she felt
> discriminated against by call centres with biased structures,
remits and
> criteria. She could also find nobody medically qualified at HSA,
who had
> taken a Code of Ethics, who really understands her medical
conditions.
>
> Yours faithfully,

Yours sincerely,

Julie Shrive

Dear Scandrett, Peter,

?!!
Phoned up over 4 x now & this person has not even had decency to
call me back . Are you going to maladministrate yet again . So
would like the urgent oral meeting with my legal expert witness
postponed because of the extremely unfair investigation conducted 3
x by yourselves . How you can do this without collaborating orally
with myself when dyspraxic I don't know .
Feel my disabilities are being used to wind me up so because of my
age and disability would like external outreach worker and LCO
Officer rejected by Legal Complaints that committed fraud because
you have not addressed fairly . As you have had this case 2/3 yrs
now . How long does it take ? This is least you can do . What is
going on?

Yours sincerely,

Julie Shrive