Truth in public life
Dear Office of the Public Guardian,
Dear Attorney General’s Office,
TRUTH
I am making a Freedom of Information Request for information you hold regarding the number of complaints you have received since March 2011 in relation to an objection by a Nearest Relative or a Next of Kin of a person who has been held under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 against their will and both the Nearest Relative and the Patient are both listed as Defendants in an action brought by a Local Authority seeking to Displace the Nearest Relative and put their own choice in place of the Nearest Relative and also seek to exclude any other member of the patient's immediate family such as a brother or sister from acting as Nearest Relative, thereby perverting the course of justice, truth and transparency in public life where the other members of the family have not been properly consulted or considered? And where the police are also seeking via the CPS to prosecute the Nearest Relative for alleged abuse/wilful neglect of the person said to have a major mental illness even though that has been specifically challenged and there is ample medical proof to show that in the alternative psychiatrists within a number of days specifically disagreed with the diagnosis, so that one stated that there was no sign of mental illness or thought disorder and another one says clearly there is a long history of mental illness thereby leading to total confusion, muddle, disorientation of the family and great unsettlement all round.
In the context of the above,
a] False detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
b] Illegal detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
c] Malicious detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
d] Deliberate detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 against the expressed wishes of the Nearest Relative
e] Deliberate detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 where the Nearest Relative has specifically been excluded by the AMHP on account of allegedly "best interests" of the person being detained
f] Abduction of a person from a public place without a warrant of section 136
g] Abduction of a person from a place of residence without a
warrant of section 135
h] Abduction of a person under coercion from one acute hospital trust to another mental health trust without any Section of the Mental Health Act in place
i] False imprisonment using the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 as a means to an end
j] False statements in the assessment used by the AMHP to Section someone under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
l] Misleading statements in the assessment used by the AMHP to Section someone under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
m] Misleading statements by Section 12 Doctors leading to
Sectioning of a person under false premiss
n] Misleading statements by an authorised person under the Mental Health Act acting as a doctor who has met the person previously and then makes specifically wrong and misleading statements as though they were factual
o] Misleading witness statements of fact in an investigation
conducted by the Metropolitan Police
p] Misleading witness statements of fact by the Metropolitan Police
q] Misleading witness statements produced to a Mental Health Review Tribunal where the standard of evidence is not as high as that of a Civil Court or Crown Prosecution
r] Misleading Decision of a Mental Health Review Tribunal which, when the Nearest Relative made an Appeal, was turned down on spurious grounds
s] Misleading documentation where the professionals have met
together in a "multi-agency professionals meeting" consisting of police, solicitors for a local authority and a mental health trust,representatives of a mental health trust, and formed an opinion of a potential suspect on police bail without charge that the person's veracity is suspect even though there is no actual evidence to
support such a claim
t] Misleading information given to the Official Solicitor who then determines wrongfully that something has happened when in fact it has not and has serious consequences for both the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 and his/her Nearest Relative who are both being litigated against by the Local Authority in search of a
Displacement of Nearest Relative but that the Official Solicitor has accepted de facto that the Nearest Relative is in the wrong and that the Mental Health Trust's own doctor who made the original Section 3 to admit into hospital is also the one who has made Best Interests decisions and performed the Mental Capacity Test to
decide upon the fate of both the patient and Nearest Relative
I wish to know how many people have made similar complaints and how many complaints in total for each point have been made.
Thank you very much for your help
Yours sincerely
[first name removed] [last name removed]
A campaigner for Justice, Truth and Transparency in our Mental Health Tribunals and Civil Courts and Crown Courts
Dear Office of the Public Guardian,
I have mistakenly added the Attorney General in this Request, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am making this SPECIFIC REQUEST to the Office of the Public Guardian, not the Attorney General to whom I have written separately of THEM, in their own FOI material.
Please process my FOI accordingly.
Thank you very much,
Yours sincerely,
[first name removed] [last name removed]
CORRECTED VERSION PLEASE ACTIVATE THANK YOU:
Dear Office of the Public Guardian,
TRUTH
I am making a Freedom of Information Request for information you hold regarding the number of complaints you have received since March 2011 in relation to an objection by a Nearest Relative or a Next of Kin of a person who has been held under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 against their will and both the Nearest Relative and the Patient are both listed as Defendants in an action brought by a Local Authority seeking to Displace the Nearest Relative and put their own choice in place of the Nearest Relative and also seek to exclude any other member of the patient's immediate family such as a brother or sister from acting as Nearest Relative, thereby perverting the course of justice, truth and transparency in public life where the other members of the family have not been properly consulted or considered? And where the police are also seeking via the CPS to prosecute the Nearest Relative for alleged abuse/wilful neglect of the person said to have a major mental illness even though that has been specifically challenged and there is ample medical proof to show that in the alternative psychiatrists within a number of days specifically disagreed with the diagnosis, so that one stated that there was no sign of mental illness or thought disorder and another one says clearly there is a long history of mental illness thereby leading to total confusion, muddle, disorientation of the family and great unsettlement all round.
In the context of the above,
a] False detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
b] Illegal detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
c] Malicious detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
d] Deliberate detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 against the expressed wishes of the Nearest Relative
e] Deliberate detention under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 where the Nearest Relative has specifically been excluded by the AMHP on account of allegedly "best interests" of the person being detained
f] Abduction of a person from a public place without a warrant of section 136
g] Abduction of a person from a place of residence without a warrant of section 135
h] Abduction of a person under coercion from one acute hospital trust to another mental health trust without any Section of the Mental Health Act in place
i] False imprisonment using the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 as a means to an end
j] False statements in the assessment used by the AMHP to Section someone under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
l] Misleading statements in the assessment used by the AMHP to Section someone under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007
m] Misleading statements by Section 12 Doctors leading to Sectioning of a person under false premiss
n] Misleading statements by an authorised person under the Mental Health Act acting as a doctor who has met the person previously and then makes specifically wrong and misleading statements as though they were factual
o] Misleading witness statements of fact in an investigation conducted by the Metropolitan Police
p] Misleading witness statements of fact by the Metropolitan Police
q] Misleading witness statements produced to a Mental Health Review Tribunal where the standard of evidence is not as high as that of a Civil Court or Crown Prosecution
r] Misleading Decision of a Mental Health Review Tribunal which, when the Nearest Relative made an Appeal, was turned down on spurious grounds
s] Misleading documentation where the professionals have met together in a "multi-agency professionals meeting" consisting of police, solicitors for a local authority and a mental health trust,representatives of a mental health trust, and formed an opinion of a potential suspect on police bail without charge that the person's veracity is suspect even though there is no actual evidence to support such a claim
t] Misleading information given to the Official Solicitor who then determines wrongfully that something has happened when in fact it has not and has serious consequences for both the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 and his/her Nearest Relative who are both being litigated against by the Local Authority in search of a Displacement of Nearest Relative but that the Official Solicitor has accepted de facto that the Nearest Relative is in the wrong and that the Mental Health Trust's own doctor who made the original Section 3 to admit into hospital is also the one who has made Best Interests decisions and performed the Mental Capacity Test to decide upon the fate of both the patient and Nearest Relative
I wish to know how many people have made similar complaints and how many complaints in total for each point have been made.
Thank you very much for your help
Yours sincerely
[first name removed] [last name removed]
A campaigner for Justice, Truth and Transparency in our Mental Health Tribunals and Civil Courts and Crown Courts
Hello,
Please find attached the acknowledgement of your recent Freedom of Information Act Request.
Kind Regards,
Tina Ford
Customer Intelligence Team
Dear Tina Ford,
Thank you very much for your acknowledgement, and I look forward to hearing from you in due course. I wish to emphasise that I am looking for NATIONAL figures found in England / England and Wales / Wales/ Scotland / Northern Ireland and /or the full statistics for the whole of the United Kingdom. I am specifically NOT referring to any one particular case.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
[first name removed] [last name removed]
Dear Ms [last name removed],
Please find attached the response to your FOI request.
Kind Regards,
Paul Pendleton
Customer Intelligence Team
Office of the Public Guardian
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
20 February 2012
Dear Mr Pendleton OPG,
I am most grateful to you for your detailed reponse in which you state:
"It appears that the overarching theme of your request is surrounding detention under the mental health act."
This is correct.
You then state:
"The OPG does not hold information regarding complaints of this nature."
MY QUESTIONS OF 20 FEBRUARY 2012 IN CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR RESPONSE:
Why is this so? Can a patient be both on the MHA1983[2007] Section 3 AND be on the MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005?
And if the answer is "yes", why does the OPG not look at patients who are deemed to lack mental capacity under Mental Capacity Act 2005 at one and the same time as them being under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983[2007]?
Does the OPG deal with people who have Deprivation of Liberty safeguards in the MHA1983[2007]?
You then state:
"Furthermore we do not keep information on complaints received from members of the public who challenge the diagnosis of medical practitioners."
MY QUESTIONS IN CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR RESPONSE:
May I ask that the OPG review its working practice and log complaints received from members of the public who challenge the diagnosis of medical practitioners as there is much confusion surrounding mental health legislation with people who are under Section 3 of the MHA who are also being deemed to be incapacitous under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 yet these two laws are mutually exclusive just at the OPG response to me has indicated that it deals exclusively with MCA2005 and NOT AT ALL with the MHA1983[2005].
That being the case, how does the OPG deal with referrals to them where just such a patient has been referred with inappropriate legislation being enforced IF as has been stated elsewhere that these two acts are NOT possible to be used at one and the same time for the same patient?
That being the case, please confirm that you do NOT have any patient under Section 3 of the MHA referred to you the OPG under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 - this is very important.
For it is DIFFERENT from a person FIRST being deemed to be incapacitous under the MCA2005 AND being referred to the OPG, and only afterwards THEN being sectioned under Section 3 of the MHA1983[2007].
Please clarify the law and how the OPG has dealt with such situations as they have arisen. Thank you very much.
This is also in reference to your next statements:
"The OPG operates purely under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which came into effect in October 2007 and our jurisdiction to investigate comes from this Act."
"We do not have jurisdiction to investigate matters under the Mental Health Act 2007."
"The OPG’s roles and responsibilities are set out in Sections 57-60 of the Mental Capacity Act which I have attached for your information."
Could you please provide this link as I could not see the attachment thank you very much as I am sure it will help both me and others affected by this legislation.
You then state:
"The OPG are responsible for the registering of Powers of Attorney and the supervision of Court appointed Deputies. Attorneys and Deputies are able to manage the financial affairs of the people they have been appointed to look after."
May I ask if this includes local government appointees who have taken control over Benefits claims for patients under MHA1983[2007] where the patients have been deemed to be mentally incapacitated whilst on section using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as its basis?
You then state:
"If anybody has a concern as to how an Attorney or Deputy is managing a person’s affairs, they are able to confidentially inform the OPG."
Can I make a complaint against a local authority appointee who abrogates to themselves appointeeship regarding DWP applications for benefits, regarding a patient who is under Section 3 MHA1983[2007] and deemed to be incapacitous under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 even though these are supposed NOT to be used together, as I have been informed?
You then state:
"This complaint is then investigated by the Compliance Team here at the OPG. All complaints are risk assessed and if the complaint does need to be taken forward as an investigation, this is then undertaken by one of our caseworkers who prepare a report for the Public Guardian.
The OPG can carry out investigations into the actions or a Deputy or a Registered Attorney but not in cases where there is no registered Power of Attorney or where the Deputy has been discharged.
Under the Mental Capacity Act, The Office of the Public Guardian does not hold any enforcement powers themselves and can only take action by making applications to the Court of Protection."
How does the complaints procedure actually work? Please may I have the entire complaints procedure provided to me so that I and others may make informed complaint to the OPG to be taken to the Court of Protection especially where a patient under Section 3 of the MHA1983[2007] is a beneficiary to a sizeable inheritance and there are fears lest the local authority might be biased as to how they might use that inheritance in that person's so-called "best interests" which may not be in accordance at all with what the patient under MHA1983[2007] who has been deemed incapacitous under MCA2005 DURING CAPTIVITY under MHA1983[2007] Section 3?
To me this is very important regarding Human Rights and Liberty, freedom to have private life and freewill and pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Do you have any regard at all to the Human Rights Act at all?
"If we receive any concerns that fall outside of our jurisdiction, such as those you refer to, these are signposted to other agencies such as Local Authorities or the Police. If you have any concerns yourself about a specific case then you should also contact these agencies or you can also contact your local MP."
Could you please tell me where you have sent my complaints as you state that if you receive any concerns that fall outside your jurisdiction, these are signposted to other agencies such as local authorities or the police.
The OPG are fully aware of my specific concerns about a specific person, as I have emailed many times to you and therefore i would be very grateful to have an in-depth answer to my emails and to whom they have been forwarded. Please may I have the answer via my private email as I believe that it is very important for total transparency as I am the Executrix of a deceased person where the beneficiary is variously described as having no formal thought disorder and no clear evidence of mental illness to the other end of the scale where this person is deemed to lack mental capacity and this is now of nightmare proportions as I need to get probate sorted.
Please advise me or signpost me in the right direction as I note you state about the Court of Protection.
How do I go about this please?
Thank you very much for your help,
Yours sincerely,
[first name removed] [last name removed]
Campaigner for legal reform, Liberty, Truth and Justice
=======================================================
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Public Guardian. This is an automated response to confirm we have received your message to our Freedom of Information Enquiries inbox. We endeavour to respond to all e-mails as soon as possible.
More information regarding Freedom of Information and Data Protection is available on our website: www.direct.gov.uk under Government, Citizens, and Rights.
Please be aware the Office of the Public Guardian is not able to provide legal advice.
Thank you
OPG Freedom of Information Enquiries
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
Dear Mr Cameron Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight and the Office of the Public Guardian,
I am writing to request an internal review of Office of the Public Guardian's handling of my FOI request 'Truth in public life'.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tr...
I am seeking a root and branch investigation into the entire Mental Health Legislative Framework regarding the Mental Health Act 1983[2007] and Mental Capacity Act including Section 44 of MCA2005 which has particular bearing on the Health and Social Care Framework being put in place to restructure the ENTIRE Health and Social Care of the United Kingdom - but with regional variations? as per the local legislative and executive powers - such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will have different frameworks from England - are they all bound by the MHA1983[2007] AND MCA2005?
This is a vital area to get right otherwise potentially 6 MILLION people might be in fear of being found to be "guilty" of wilful neglect and / or wilful ill-treatment of people who might be considered "vulnerable" using forensic tests to determine whether or not that person was cognisant at that precise moment in time for doing a particular act or series of acts.
WE HAVE CROSSED THE RUBICON.
PLEASE INVESTIGATE.
Thank you very much for your help,
Yours sincerely,
[first name removed] [last name removed]
Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Public Guardian. This is an automated response to confirm we have received your message to our Freedom of Information Enquiries inbox. We endeavour to respond to all e-mails as soon as possible.
More information regarding Freedom of Information and Data Protection is available on our website: www.direct.gov.uk under Government, Citizens, and Rights.
Please be aware the Office of the Public Guardian is not able to provide legal advice.
Thank you
OPG Freedom of Information Enquiries
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
Dear Ms [last name removed],
Thank you for your recent email requesting an internal review into your Freedom of Information request titled 'Truth in Public Life'. Please find attached our formal acknowledgement.
Regards
Lauren Elliott
Customer Intelligence Team
Dear Ms [last name removed],
Please find attached a response to your recent Freedom of Information Act Request. Please note that we will separately undertake an internal review of your previous FOI request as per your request to us on 21 February. An outcome of that internal review will follow separately.
Kind Regards,
Lauren Elliott
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
19 March 2012
Dear Ms Elliott,OPG Knowledge and Information Enquiries, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Mr Lansley Secretary of State for Health,
I am writing to thank Ms Elliott for your response to me of Reference FOI 75472. i am particularly indebted to you for your thoroughness, and it has led me to ask supplementary questions based on your responses.
‘Please may I have the entire complaints procedure provided to me so that I and others may make informed complaint to the OPG to be taken to the Court of Protection especially where a patient under Section 3 of the MHA1983[2007] is a beneficiary to a sizeable inheritance and there are fears lest the local authority might be biased as to how they might use that inheritance in that person's so-called "best interests" which may not be in accordance at all with what the patient under MHA1983[2007] who has been deemed incapacitous under MCA2005 DURING CAPTIVITY under MHA1983[2007] Section 3?’
‘The OPG’s roles and responsibilities are set out in Sections 57-60 of the Mental Capacity Act which I have attached for your information." Could you please provide this link as I could not see the attachment thank you very much as I am sure it will help both me and others affected by this legislation.’
In regard to the first question, I can confirm that the OPG holds information that you have asked for and it is already publicly available at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/opg
In regard to the second question, I can confirm that the OPG holds this information and it is publicly available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005...
Thank you - I am grateful for this information.
-------------------------------------------------------
You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000... and further guidance http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-e....
Thank you - I am grateful for this information.
The remainder of the questions in your email have been addressed outside the scope of the FOIA, as these questions are not valid requests under the Act. I hope the answers to those questions, provided below, are useful.
------------------------------------------------------
‘Why does the OPG not look at patients who are deemed to lack mental capacity under Mental Capacity Act (2005) at one and the same time as them being under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983(2007)?’
The actions and influence of the Office of the Public Guardian are confined to dealing with the MCA, the guidelines for which were attached to the OPG’s original response, and therefore hold no jurisdiction to act, comment on or deal with complaints concerned with the MHA. In this sense, the response that was sent to you explained that for the most part, the OPG was unable to provide you with any relevant information.
Thank you. As the OPG has stated that the MCA2005 and MHA1983[2007] are not mutually exclusive, what multi-agency arrangements are in place so that both the MCA2005 and MHA1983[2007] FOR THE SAME PERSON can be co-ordinated as if not, surely there is room for confusion and possible overlap and one agency saying and doing one thing and another agency saying and doing something that countermanded the other agency. Please give me the details of how you operate in such circumstances. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------
‘Why does the OPG not look at patients who are deemed to lack mental capacity under Mental Capacity Act 2005 at one and the same time as them being under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983(2007)?’
In your earlier request of 23 January you asked for data surrounding number of complaints regarding mental health professionals and the MHA. Our response on 20 February offered a comprehensive explanation as to why we would be unable to collate this data, explaining the complaint procedure and the conditions under which the OPG holds jurisdiction to act. The Office of the Public Guardian may only conduct investigations into alleged behaviour of an appointed deputy or attorney in concordance with the MCA. The OPG may not act under the MHA or in cases where there is no appointed deputy or attorney. Unfortunately, the information you have already received cannot be developed as the OPG ultimately do not hold the jurisdiction to investigate the situations upon which you raise question.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------
‘Can a person be both on the MHA1983(2007) Section 3 and on the MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005?’
Although the OPG operates solely under the MCA, this does not limit a person to be defined under this act alone. A person can fall within both the MHA and the MCA, and the two acts are not mutually exclusive.
Please confirm that you do NOT have any patient under Section 3 of the MHA referred to you the OPG under the Mental Capacity Act 2005’
If a person is detained under the MHA, a complaint may be made to OPG about the conduct of an appointed attorney or deputy. However, it is unlikely that this complaint would relate to the actions of an attorney or deputy in the context of the MHA, as appointed deputies and attorneys are not legally able to make decisions about detention or treatment. The OPG may not investigate complaints about the MHA aspect of a case, as this falls outside its legal remit. Chapter 13 of the MCA’s code of practice explains the relationship between the two acts. This can be accessed by using the following internet link:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/protecting-the...
Please expand what you mean by saying that the appointed deputies and attorneys are not legally able to make decisions about detention or treatment, as this seems to be a problem here - local authorities appoint AMHPs who can and do arrange DETENTION AND TREATMENT on behalf of the Local Authority, and where they displace a Nearest Relative then the Local Authority can be both Gaoler and Judge in their own case, as detention is being gaoled, and the Judge is the Local Authority and there is no appeal anywhere else, is there? If I am wrong in my understanding, I would be most grateful to be given the correct position, as it is vital that I know the legal status and law on this. Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------
‘Does the OPG deal with people who have Deprivation of Liberty safeguards in the MHA1983 (2007)?’
In relation to Deprivation of Liberty safeguards, the OPG deals with this only when there is an appointed deputy or attorney, and there has been a complaint made about them.
How does a person make a complaint to the OPG in such circumstances? Is there a specific form which has to be filled in? Or is it just saying I am making a complaint that....? And to whom does one make a complaint? What is the complaint process?
-----------------------------------------------------
‘For it is DIFFERENT from a person FIRST being deemed to be incapacitous under the MCA2005 AND being referred to the OPG, and only afterwards THEN being sectioned under Section 3 of the MHA1983(2007). Please clarify the law and how the OPG has dealt with such situations as they have arisen’
You refer to people being referred to the OPG, but this is not the case. A complaint about an attorney or deputy may be referred to the organisation, and whether a person is, or has ever been detained under the MHA has no bearing whatsoever on their dealing with the Office of the Public Guardian.
THIS IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO KNOW - clearly I was misinformed, and therefore this FOI response is most useful. Thank you very much.
-----------------------------------------------------
‘May I ask if this includes local government appointees who have taken control over Benefits claims for patients under MHA1983(2007) where the patiests have been deemed to be mentally incapacitated whilst on section using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as its basis?’
In terms of local government appointees, the OPG are unable to comment on this as the organisation has no power in relation to appointees, regardless of whether the person lacks mental capacity or not. The issue you highlight surrounding a complaint about appointees related to the Department of Work and Pensions should be directed towards that department and can not be addressed or commented on by ourselves.
Thank you very much. Again this is a most useful response.
------------------------------------------------------
‘Could you please tell me where you have sent my complaints as you state that if you receive any concerns that fall outside your jurisdiction, these are signposted to other agencies such as local authorities.’
Furthermore, the OPG have not been able to find any records regarding any specific complaints raised by yourself, and can therefore not pass comment on any agencies or authorities to which these may or may not have been forwarded.
I feel it is also important to add that we do not consider that the OPG’s functions put it in a position to make any decision which could infringe the human rights of the person whose deputy or attorney which the OPG is investigating. Legislation and frameworks that the OPG operates within were designed so as to not impact on an individuals’ rights under the European Convention for Human Rights (1950).
This is very helpful. Please is there a link or the precise details of what these European Convention for Human Rights (1950) actually are. Is the UK a full signee to these as I have heard that the UK did not sign up to the entire Human Rights Act. But is this a different code, and is it universal in application?
-------------------------------------------------------
You have the right to appeal our decision in regards to the FOIA aspects of this letter if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Lauren Elliott
Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer
Thank you very much indeed.
If I may have my supplementary questions answered by way of a further FOI Request, I would be most grateful.
With best wishes
[first name removed] [last name removed]
How to Appeal
Internal Review
If you are not satisfied with the response given to the FOI parts of your request, you have the right to an internal review. The handling of your request will be looked at by someone who was not responsible for the original case, and they will make a decision as to whether we answered your request correctly.
If you would like to request a review, please write or send an email to the Data Access and Compliance Unit within two months of the data of this letter, at the
following address:
Data Access and Compliance Unit (6.25),
Information & Communications Directorate,
Ministry of Justice,
102 Petty France,
London
SW1H 9AJ
Information Commissioner’s Office
If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Commissioner is an independent regulator who has the power to direct us to respond to your request differently, if he considers that we have handled it incorrectly.
You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Internet address: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...
EXPLANATION OF FOIA - SECTION 21 – INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE BY OTHER MEANS
We have provided below additional information about Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act. We have included some extracts from the legislation, as well as some of the guidance we use when applying it. We hope you find this information useful.
The legislation
Section 1: Right of Access to information held by public authorities
(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.
Section 21: Information accessible to applicant by other means
(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
(a) information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment, and
(b) information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the applicant if it is information which the public authority or any other person is obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request, whether free of charge or on payment.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the information is available from the public authority itself on request, unless the information is made available in accordance with the authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme.
Guidance
Section 21 exempts information from the right of access under the Freedom of Information Act if that information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means.
Section 21 is aimed at preserving intact all existing laws providing access to information. The Freedom of Information Act is not designed to subsume other legal access rights, nor to give alternative routes of access where existing regimes are already available. The Freedom of Information Act access rights build on, but do not replace, previous access rights. Those existing rights, and the separate procedural regimes which are tailored to them, continue in place, and the Freedom of Information Act observes corresponding limits to its role.
Section 21 also confirms that the Freedom of Information Act does not provide alternative means of access to information which is already freely available, either through commercial publishing operations or through existing publicly funded provision. The Freedom of Information Act rights are designed to supplement, and not to duplicate, the usual flow of information to the public through the commercial electronic and print media, and through existing library and archive services.
Section 21 is an absolute exemption, which means that no consideration of the public interest test is required to withhold information."
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Public Guardian. This is an automated response to confirm we have received your message to our Freedom of Information Enquiries inbox. We endeavour to respond to all e-mails as soon as possible.
More information regarding Freedom of Information and Data Protection is available on our website: www.direct.gov.uk under Government, Citizens, and Rights.
Please be aware the Office of the Public Guardian is not able to provide legal advice.
Thank you
OPG Freedom of Information Enquiries
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
Dear Ms [last name removed],
Please find attached a response to your request for an internal review, dated 21st February 2012.
Regards
Lauren Elliott
Customer Intelligence Team
Jean James left an annotation ()
There are people who have been put under the Court of Protection, where no illness exists, for the purpose of corrupt parties stealing their assets.
The Mental Health Act is often used to silence victims of crime. Many corrupt parties are involved.
A person can be sectioned and put under the Court of Protection with the signature of only one SOCIAL WORKER, rather than two psychiatrists. There is something VERY SINISTER about this.
Make no mistake about it - the mental health acts are being abused by corrupt people.
Peter Hofschröer (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Sadly, this case is all too familiar.
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) was actively involved in attempt to defraud my 83 year-old, wheelchair-bound mother of her assets, which I was fortunately able to block. Corrupt officials in the OPG were collaborating with corrupt officers of North Yorkshire Police (NYP) and social workers from the City of York Council (CYC). Questions have been asked in Parliament about this case. Please see:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=...
Please note that neither NYP nor CYC are denying these allegations of corruption. They are instead exercising their right to silence.
You may also like to look at this article and the links, which describe just some of the criminal activities undertaken by NYP:
http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/more-corrup...
Martin John, the chief executive of the OPG, is actively involved in the attempts to defraud my mother. He has not denied public accusations of corruption, neither has he taken action against the accuser. Instead, he too is exercising his right to silence, which says it all.
The Ministry of Justice, of which the OPG is part, has for months now been evading requests to investigate this corruption and / or have it investigated by the police.
The only logical conclusion one can draw from this is that official corruption is endemic in the once proud country of Britain.
20 March 2012
Dear Ms Elliott, OPG, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, the Attorney General, Official Solicitor, Information Commissioner,
I am writing to thank Ms Elliott for her Internal Review of my request for information and find that her response makes me uneasy as to what the actual purpose of the Office of the Public Guardian's remit is.
Therefore, I request that the FULL remit of the OPG be made available to me via this whatdotheyknow charity website because if there are specific internet links that will give me this information specifically the Constitution of the OPG - I am aware that this is a relatively new organisation/government department as the MCA2005 itself only became operational in part in April 2007 and fully operational in October 2007.
I extract from Ms Elliott's attached response, and have numbered them SECTION 1, SECTION 2, SECTION3:
SECTION 1:
'“I am writing to request an internal review of Office of the Public Guardian's handling of my FOI request 'Truth in public life'."
The purpose of an internal review is to assess how your FOI request was handled in the first instance and to determine whether the original decision given to you was correct.
I have reassessed your case and after careful consideration I have concluded that the initial response that was sent to you was compliant with the requirements of the FOIA."'
=======================================================
SECTION 2
'The response that was sent to you explained that the OPG did not hold the information you requested because the information related to detention under the MHA 2007. I can reconfirm that the OPG do not hold this information, and that the original response you were given was correct. This is because the actions and influence of the OPG are confined to dealing with the MCA; the guidelines for which were attached to the OPG’s original response. The OPG does not hold jurisdiction to act, comment on or deal with complaints concerned with the MHA.'
=======================================================
SECTION 3
'Further, in your email you also asked for clarification as to whether the MHA and MCA are binding in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I can confirm that both the MHA and MCA apply in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'
======================================================
I am not at all convinced by these responses.
As I wrote when requesting Internal Review, the MHA 1983[2007] specifically modifies the MCA2005. But the MHA and MCA2005 are totally independent one of the other, and there has been an important case in 2011 where the Judge pointed out that they are NOT interchangeable.
Therefore I dispute the OPG's assertion that they can be used together at one and the same time, as has been asserted to me by the OPG that they can be used TOGETHER.
I specifically wish to have the LEGAL BASIS for what has been claimed by the OPG as it has far-reaching ramifications and consequences for millions of people across the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, the OPG states categorically that the MHA and MCA are in force throughout the United Kingdom but this is not so. They are NOT the same legislation and for the OPG TO CLAIM THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL and applicable throughout the UNITED KINGDOM is simply not true, as even MINOR differences make them completely different. In Scotland it is "benefit" in England it is "best interests".
Please clarify this specifically.
Thank you very much for your help,
Yours sincerely,
[first name removed] [last name removed]
Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Public Guardian. This is an automated response to confirm we have received your message to our Freedom of Information Enquiries inbox. We endeavour to respond to all e-mails as soon as possible.
More information regarding Freedom of Information and Data Protection is available on our website: www.direct.gov.uk under Government, Citizens, and Rights.
Please be aware the Office of the Public Guardian is not able to provide legal advice.
Thank you
OPG Freedom of Information Enquiries
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
Dear Mrs [last name removed],
Thank you for your two e-mails of todays date. The issues you raise in these e-mails will be addressed together in this response, outside of the scope of Freedom of Information Act (2000). If you are unhappy with my previous responses please contact the Information Commissioners Office.
You ask for the full remit of the Office of the Public Guardian. Below is a link to our website which sets out exactly what we do.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/opg
As you state, the MHA and the MCA are not 'interchangeable'. This has never been claimed by the OPG. As my previous response explained, the MHA and MCA are not mutually exclusive, meaning they can be used together irrespectively. The two acts are different pieces of legislature with different effects, and can therefore not be interchanged. Furthermore, the Office of the Public Guardian has never claimed that the MHA and MCA are identical, as this is incorrect.
The MHA and MCA can both be applied to one person, and in this case the two acts do not effect each other. Therefore, multi-agency arrangements are not needed to coordinate actions governed by the two acts. The OPG therefore can not comment on these situations as they do not occur due to the acts not being mutually exclusive. The acts of one agency acting under one act do not affect those of another agency acting under a different legislation. You ask for a legal basis for this, which can be found by reading thoroughly chapter 13 of the mental capacity act which explains how the acts are implemented and how they effect each other. I have included the link below.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/prot...
In relation to your query about the MHA and MCA in the United Kingdom, Scotland is governed by different legislature to that of England and Wales. The Office of the Public Guardian has no influence or jurisdiction in Scotland as there is a separate organisation in place (Office of the Public Guardian Scotland).
The Office of the Public Guardian can not comment on the actions of AMHP's appointed by Local Authorities. The Office of the Public Guardian may only investigate into the behaviour of deputies and attorneys appointed by either ourselves or the Court of Protection. Furthermore, attorneys and deputies appointed by the OPG or CoP under the remit of the Mental Capacity Act may not make legal decisions regarding detention and treatment. Therefore the Office of the Public Guardian may not make comment as this is outside of our jurisdiction. I would suggest you contact your local MP with matters surrounding a Local Authority.
In terms of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, the OPG may only investigate such a matter relating to a person for whom there is a registered LPA or EPA, and where there has been a complaint made to us about an attorney or deputy. Any complaints made to ourselves are regarding the behaviour of an attorney or deputy appointed by the Office of the Public Guardian, and as they hold no legal jurisdiction to make any decisions about Deprivation of Liberty a complaint of this nature is highly unlikely. Again, I suggest that correspondence with either your Local Authority or MP may be more beneficial as it does not fall under our remit.
For your information I also include a copy of the European Convention for Human Rights (1950).
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5C...
I cannot make comment or offer any legal advice on this in relation to the United Kingdom. However you may wish to look at the Human Rights Act (1998) to provide you with further information, a link for which I have also provided.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998...
Regards
Lauren Elliott
Customer Intelligence Team
Jean James left an annotation ()
It is alleged that Effie Goder was put under the Court of Protection fraudulently. She has not lost capacity. She lost, instead, three properties to fraud, which was facilitated by a large international law firm.
The family cannot get justice or an investigation.
name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
http://birminghamlibdems.org.uk/en/conta...
JOHN HEMMING MP
Jean James left an annotation ()
Don't think this is an isolated case. If there had been proper security protocols in place with the Office of the Public Guardian, Court of Protection, this could never have happened, but as it is..........http://www.lincs.police.uk/News-Centre/N...
9 April 2012
Dear Office of the Public Guardian, Mr Lansley Secretary of State for Health, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Information Commissioner,
I am most grateful to Ms Elliott for your kind help in giving me explanations to my enquiries. I would also like to take up your offer of asking the Information Commissioner to review and liaise with the OPG regarding my FOI Requests.
Please may I ask further of the Office of the Public Guardian, by what law can a hospital or other health service or Multi-Agency Arrangement - including the Police Service and Local Authority - refuse to give a Nearest Relative information about the patient for whom he/she is acting in their best interests?
I have read about Nearest Relative and Guardianship on a mental health website today and now am very confused and concerned about civil liberties.
For if the OPG has nothing at all to do with the Mental Health Act 1983/2007, and solely confines itself to Mental Capacity Act 2005, how can a patient have BOTH a Guardian AND a Nearest Relative?
And if this is legally possible, which takes precedence, the Guardian under the OPG or the Nearest Relative under the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 under the Secretary of State for Health?
Does it automatically follow that if a patient is under Guardianship - AS PER the OPG - that a hospital or other medical facility or GP or MAPPA Agency or Police or CPS or Social Worker or Local Authority or AMHP - can then REFUSE to give medical information and written records to a Nearest Relative?
And does it automatically follow that if a patient is under Guardianship - AS PER the OPG - that a hospital or other medical facility or GP or MAPPA Agency or Police or CPS or Social Worker or Local Authority or AMHP - can then REFUSE to allow a Nearest Relative to make complaint on behalf of the patient about any of the Multi-Agency Arrangements including:
CPS,
Police,
MP,
Councillor,
Local Authority,
Care Quality Commission,
Office of the Public Guardian,
HMRC,
HMCTS,
Secretary of State for Health,
Hospital Managers,
Attorney General,
Official Solicitor,
GP,
Health Trust,
Health Authority,
PCT,
Monitor,
PHSO,
European Court of Human Rights,
European Parliament,
MEP,
European Ombudsman,
LGO,
GMC,
NMC,
and any other officialdom as there may be?
It is a very serious question which needs proper explanation as in my own experience it has been put as a reason not to provide information because a person is going through Guardianship proceedings.
If that is the case, then surely it is a travesty of natural justice for if a person is actually harmed by what has been done to him/her but the local authority, say, removes the right of a Nearest Relative, this then has the effect of silencing all opposition to what has been done to him/her by various multi-agency arrangements, I aver.
Thus I would be most grateful for further clarification of the OPG and MCA2005 and Guardian and the Nearest Relative and Mental Health Patient under Section of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007.
It appears that there is much governmental confusion.
Thank you very much for your help,
Yours sincerely,
[first name removed] [last name removed]
Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Public Guardian. This is an automated response to confirm we have received your message to our Freedom of Information Enquiries inbox. We endeavour to respond to all e-mails as soon as possible.
More information regarding Freedom of Information and Data Protection is available on our website: www.direct.gov.uk under Government, Citizens, and Rights.
Please be aware the Office of the Public Guardian is not able to provide legal advice.
Thank you
OPG Freedom of Information Enquiries
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
Peter Hofschröer (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
The OPG is actively involved in the financial abuse of my mother (do google: "The Abuse of Grandma B"), is unlawfully withholding sight of documents which show how its officers and former chief executive Martin John have collaborated with a corrupt former police officer in his attempts to defraud my mother of her assets.
The Information Commissioners Office has refused to apply the Data Protection Act to this case - which is, of course, unlawful.
Officialdom has closed ranks around corrupt officials and politicians.
Lord Maginnis is now pressing for a public enquiry into my mother's case. Without him, we would not have got very far.
Dear Ms [last name removed],
Thank you for your email of 9th April 2012. In order to make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office, you must follow the procedure as laid out on their website. I have provided the link below.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
In relation to your other questions, I feel the Office of the Public Guardian can make no further comment. The issues you raise are not within our remit, and we are not the organisation best placed to answer any of your questions. As I have communicated in our previous correspondence, the OPG operates solely under the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and can therefore provide no information in regards to a Nearest Relative, the Mental Health Act (2007), or Multi Agency Arrangements. In previous responses I have provided you with the legislation surrounding the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and specifically how this relates to the Mental Health Act (2007). Should you seek further clarification other than the explanations I have provided in several previous responses, may I suggest that you seek legal advice.
The OPG cannot give any information about complaint procedures for a Nearest Relative in relation to any of the organisations you quote. Similarly, we cannot comment on any Multi Agency Arrangements nor on the actions of Local Authorities. Again, I suggest that you seek legal advice to provide more information regarding the specific legislation to which you refer.
Regards,
Lauren Elliott
Customer Intelligence Team
10 April 2012
Dear OPG FOI Enquiries,Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight and the Information Commission,
I thank the OPG for your further information but still believe that you should be able to answer in full my enquiries.
As such I ask the Information Commissioner to liaise with the OPG to get me the answers to the questions I have raised.
One crucial part of my whole questioning process has been to distinguish what actually is the LAW on the administration of Justice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the separate Mental Health Act 1983/2007 which modified the DOLS of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 thereby making it totally muddled and confused.
For if the OPG which was set up to administer the MCA2005 cannot and will not get involved with the MHA1983/2007 then all chaos will ensue - as it has.
There is total pandemonium and confusion on account of these 2 disparate laws being used in conjunction whilst being administered by different authorities.
I request a total and radical reform of all mental health and mental capacity legislation so that people can be totally knowing what is and what is not mental capacity. After all the Police have a different interpretation, the Law Commission another, and there is no legally-binding definition of "mental capacity" and a person who is "incapacitous" because it all depends on the definitions.
The fact that the OPG has suggested that I get legal advice does, in my opinion, say it all.
FOR, IF THE OPG does not know themselves what is the law in these matters - and that the retained OPG lawyers cannot provide the answers - why should the public bear the cost in personal and emotional terms for the vagaries of our political and legal overseers of our society?
I look forward to receiving a full response from the OPG and Information Commission,
Thank you so much,
Yours sincerely,
[first name removed] [last name removed]
Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Public Guardian. This is an automated response to confirm we have received your message to our Freedom of Information Enquiries inbox. We endeavour to respond to all e-mails as soon as possible.
More information regarding Freedom of Information and Data Protection is available on our website: www.direct.gov.uk under Government, Citizens, and Rights.
Please be aware the Office of the Public Guardian is not able to provide legal advice.
Thank you
OPG Freedom of Information Enquiries
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes
Dear Ms [last name removed],
Thank you for your email. For your information, any request for review by the Information Commissioners Office must be submitted independently by yourself, and we as an organisation cannot request on your behalf. Should you choose to pursue this, please follow the link I provided in my previous email of yesterday's date. In addition to this, you may only request a review of the information provided to you in our Freedom of Information and Internal Review responses, and any communications dated after 20th March 2012 have been answered outside of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and are therefore not subject to review.
As I have previously stated, the Office of the Public Guardian operates solely under the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and we can provide you with no information regarding any other legislation, for example the Mental Health Act (2007). As explained, the two pieces of legislation are separate and not mutually exclusive - therefore the Mental Health Act (2007) has no influence whatsoever on the actions of the OPG.
We categorically do not act under the Mental Health Act (2007), and have no legal jurisdiction or subject matter knowledge of this area to provide you with any information. The OPG cannot legally comment on practices of any other organisations operating under different legislation, but similarly, we do not have the knowledge to assist you.
Please refer to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) as given to you in previous correspondence for clarification on the legislation and the legal definition of 'mental capacity.'
I suggest you seek legal advice to receive more comprehensive information on this matter than we can provide. A member of the legal profession would be better placed to advise you on the various legislation to which the Office of the Public Guardian is not related, as we cannot provide you with any more clarification than the explanations given to you previously. I apologise that we have not been able to provide you with the information you seek, but we have communicated all that falls within our legal remit.
Regards
Lauren Elliott
Customer Intelligence Team
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Jean James left an annotation ()
It is scandalous that a person can be sectioned with the signature of one social worker (corrupt or otherwise) instead of two psychiatrists.
There is racketeering taking place all over England, in which corrupt parties seek to steal the assets of the elderly and vulnerable, and for the benefit of criminals with law degrees.
The law must be changed, as the Mental Health Act is being used unlawfully also to silence victims of financial crime and put them away. It is absolutely unbelievable that two psychiatrists would not have to sign the medical form.
My aunt was put under the court of protection by one social worker, and a crook and his lawyer stole all her assets. The Public Guardian and Court of Protection have no safeguards in place to prevent this type of abuse, and they are unresponsive to complaints.
Suggest you ask the Auditor General to investigate. At least he appears honest.