Claim No-MISC-297a-2023
In the Administrative Courts
Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
United Kingdom
2nd May 2023
BETWEEN:
(1) Edward Moss and Mary Moss Claimant
V
(2) Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman Defendant
HEARING BUNDLE
1. (Page 2.) ‘Final Decision’ by PHSO apparently sent by post yet to date has never been received April 9th 2023 and therefore after numerous email requests for an update, (emails can be provided) it was only then emailed on 27th May 2023.
2. (Page 5.) Grounds Judicial Review by the Claimants.
3. (Page 16) Statement of Truth signed by hand and then scanned as part of N461_0222.
4. (Page 17) CQC, PHSO & LGO Relationship to one another and who is responsible.
6. (Page 31) NHS Complaint Standards Guidance hi-lighted by claimant for references.
7. (Page 45) Photograph of Claimant Edward Moss photographed 8/09/21, the day we were accepted by the PHSO, after complaining to the CQC and the next day 9/9/21, when the police may have come to section him for the final time.
8. (Page 46) Official N461_0222 (in PDF format to be helpful to the courts as the boxes became unticked when sending). I do not have access to adobe but all are PDF form and as a single bundle. I cannot adjust the size. I hope this is acceptable as a litigant in person and with the time constraints being limited by the PHSO giving me the decision 1 month ago. All the file I believe is reduced to 220ppi and saved as PDF.
9. (Page 64) Help with Fee’s PA23-027192 Certificate.
|
You can contact me on: |
0300 061 4630 |
Our reference: |
C-2045983 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aqeel.Yaqoob@ombudsman.org.uk |
|
|
In Confidence
Ms Mary Moss
Flat 32
Tonbridge House
Tonbridge Street
London
WC1H 9PB
6 April 2023
Dear Ms Moss
Your complaint about Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (The Trust)
Thank you for your patience whilst we considered your request for a review. We
are sorry you have concerns about our decision.
As you may know PHSO is the last stage in the complaints process and our
decisions are final. If someone can show us reasons to think our decision
may be wrong, we can use our discretion to carry out a review. But a
review is not a further stage in the complaints process. It is something
we do on cases where we can see there is a good reason to look at our decision
again to be assured it was the right one.
Your review request has been
considered by myself and my manager
You disagreed with our decision that we have decided your complaint against Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust is out of remit.
In coming to our decision not to consider the complaint further we assessed your complaint looking at all the available information and the email conversations we had.
We considered all the information available and have reviewed the information in light of the comments you have made, and the YouTube videos you kindly attached.
In coming to our decision, we carefully considered each part of the complaint you brought to us and still consider the complaint to be out of remit. We can assure you we have not closed the complaint on a legal technicality. Rather, we really are not able to look into the complaint as it is not within our remit.
The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 sets out what we can and cannot investigate. That Act does not give us remit to determine whether actions of any organisation were lawful or otherwise. That role is for the courts and tribunals.
We cannot look at the decision to detain as this is a matter for the mental health tribunal. Therefore, the component would be out of remit for our organisation. The further complaint regarding sectioning would relate to the sectioning decision which would also be outside of our remit as above.
Section 2 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 also sets out the organisations we can look at. That does not include Mental Health Tribunals. The subject matter complained about is not an administrative matter. The complaint is about the conduct of the tribunal. It is unfortunately not therefore in our remit to consider.
We have reviewed all the YouTube links you shared relating to
different junctures of Edward’s experiences, sectioning and funeral. We thank
you for sharing such personal videos to consider. However, these videos do not
bring any new relevant evidence which would make us question our original
decision.
We have decided we do not need to review our
decision because your review request has shown no reason or new evidence that
calls into question our decision on your complaint.
Therefore, our decision in your case (reference C-2045983) is our final view on
your complaint and we will not take any further action on it.
If you believe that
decision is wrong, it is open to you to consider taking legal action to
challenge it by way of Judicial Review proceedings. Judicial Review is a legal
action where a decision or action by a public body is reviewed by a senior
judge. You can read more about Judicial Review here: Administrative Court
judicial review guide - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
It is usual to provide Pre-Action Protocol letter setting out your concerns in
advance of issuing proceedings. The requirements are set out here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_jrv.
As you will see the protocol sets out a code of good practice and contains
steps which parties should generally follow before Issuing proceedings.
Please be aware that claims for judicial review must be issued promptly and, in
any event, not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim
first arose. It is therefore important that you consider seeking independent
legal advice as soon as possible if you think that you may seek to pursue such
an action. Please also note that legal proceedings can be costly, and you may
have to pay PHSO’s costs if you are unsuccessful. Your legal representative
will be able to advise you about prospects of success, time limits and costs.
If you wish to pursue a legal action, please send any Pre-Action letter or
issued proceedings in writing marked for the attention of the Legal Team at
PHSO, CityGate, 47 – 51 Mosley Street, Manchester, M2 3HQ. If possible, please
also send a copy by email to legal@ombudsman.org.uk
I am sorry if this is disappointing for you, but this letter marks the end of
our process. Any further contact from you about your complaint will be
added to our records, but we may not correspond any further with you about it.
Yours sincerely
Aqeel Yaqoob
Caseworker
Important details about how we use your information
You can read more about how we use your information in our privacy notice. The notice explains how we use and look after information about you, or that could identify you, and how long we keep it. It also explains your rights and how to request your information. You can find the privacy notice online at www.ombudsman.org.uk/information-you-give-us. If you would like a copy in a printed or other format, please contact informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk or call the number at the top of this letter.
Grounds for Judicial Review 02/06/2023 of the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.
These are the grounds for Judicial Review relied upon that the PHSO should’ve investigated.
Scope – 108 Grounds and statements of Truth. Already seen by PHSO on appeal.
Looking at former cases challenging the Ombudsman's handling of complaints under the 1983 MHA shows that in the case my dead brother Edward Moss’s complaint before he died, which is the case in point here the PHSO’s decision not to investigate after two years and the decision-making process is unlawful, in that they have used one area of my complaint, about a service's monitored by them, in the health setting, to debunk all other valid complaints about my brothers care and treatment in the NHS. There is evidence in their correspondence of a legal stand point and technicality to close the case and so this evidences a pre-determination of the outcomes of any investigation, into my brother's care, in the NHS, which is in their duty to investigate. The standard of review is unclear and cannot be consistently applied by due process, on each complaint.
I therefore notwithstanding that you rule that my brother has an issue initially with detainment, ask you to investigate all other matters.
I have attached the very brief 11 pages of ‘scope’ that I was asked to write, that was sent to the PHSO as requested by them and I additionally have approximately 400 pages of correspondence with them over two years, emails and evidence on the case, when needed.
I will use the ‘scope’ as it’s less than 12 pages and outlines the principles and grounds of why I believe this public body should do their job as a watchdog and investigate the important issues of the complaint, that my brother was confident in complaining about and had signed to do that, the day before he sadly, abruptly, with no police investigation died.
SCOPE
1. Misuse of the MHA to administer drugs without consent, under an unlawful section, where Edward was witnessed by family as acting normally.
2. The drugs were administered by deception, with Camden having a recent history of sectioning Edward on about five occasions since 2019, when he joined the borough and by prevarication and so-called ignorance of me, Mary Moss, being the ‘next relative’, when this was or should have been available in his medical notes, as to who Edwards ‘next relative’ was and despite knowing from Edward and me, who repeatedly told them and they knew.
3. Tribunals deliberately being cancelled to then prolong use of non-consensual medication, doing further damage to Edward, knocking him senseless for the tribunals and then not waking him up on request from his next relative, just saying to her, ‘he is sleeping’, staff being rude and evasive, condescending, short tempered and aggressive.
4. Transcripts and minutes of meetings not being provided and ‘strict proof’ that Edward is a ‘danger to himself or others’ or even adequate plausible ‘reasons’ for the section, not being made available to Edward, the ‘next relative’, or the legal advisor for Edward, Fernanda Stefani of Duncan Lewis solicitors.
5. Sections and paperwork for the sections, not being signed off with two doctors, or even one, and no independent advisor or number given to Edward to call as is standard.
6. The psychiatrist did not have recourse to any historical medical notes, in 2019 before medication was administered. This endangered Edward, who had a hole in his heart.
7. Subsequent sections, still had no historical medical notes from Hammersmith & Fulham.
8. Psychiatrists and practitioners as well as people who had never met Edward, were given platforms at meetings, as If they knew him and whole reports where concocted by them and given weight and credence. There was no duty of care. This was a shambles.
9. The zoom connection was interrupted so that Edward could not even hear the judge at the tribunal and then when asked something he couldn’t hear, he was told to leave his own meeting. He managed to say, ‘no assistance required’, ‘this is a farce’ and ‘I’m suing you’.
10. This meant he could not advocate or communicate with the tribunal and since he potentially, deliberately, was severely drugged, leading up to the tribunal, when this avenue of a tribunal was potentially deliberately compromised, he was then at the mercy of the mental health practitioners, to be drugged up again and again, weakening his constitution.
11. Notably, extreme dosages of medication were given in days leading up to important meetings, where he as the patient could easily miss the meeting or may as well since he would be seemly awake but unable to communicate either bodily or mentally.
12. In the tribunal we were told that Edward was in danger from the others in his ward, this was a reason to dismiss him from there, as he was not in danger outside but this was ignored. He was then assaulted by others in there.
13. When the mental health practitioner could see that Edward was fighting for his right to not be at his mercy, he strategically, used his sectioning powers, to pervert any kind of administrative safeguards or historical informed consent.
14. In fact, Edward was privately sectioned by Charing Cross police prior to his Camden saga and that was illegal too.
15. A reasonable person would not make a barring order if the patient posed no history of threat, no immediate threat and so that was a grave and unjust use of the practitioner’s powers that seemed timely, only when the next relative’s normal legal functions had been restored.
16. I would suggest they kept back this power to not act in the patients best autonomous interests but to outwit us in a system they understood and therefore abused and regularly do so.
17. The practitioners frustrated due process and safeguards, using the MHA incorrectly.
18. This happened unlawfully and could potentially be common practice, if a practitioner’s do not get their ways. This is of significant public importance for safeguarding in the MHA.
19. A ‘ban on discharge’ should be reserved for extremities, when a person is evidenced as a danger to themselves or others and not misused to get around a person’s objections, be that through the clear communication with their legal representatives or through their next relative.
20. Mis-interpreting ‘emotional events’ as ‘crisis points’, which can be a ‘common failing’ as staff have often no knowledge of persons real life events, such as an illness or death in the family or of a friend. They often don’t ask ‘what is the matter’ so that non-trained or non-accountable staff can make dangerous and poor decisions around care, allowing point of easy entry by police, leading to false imprisonment, without a fair and full trial, or any bail or holding period, to represent themselves with the help of their legal representative, or next relative, especially in any setting with care co-ordinators.
21. Deprivation of essential well-being items such as nicotine, routinely being with-held.
22. Addictions, such as in Edward’s case a long-held, small, personal, class A crack cocaine addiction, should’ve easily been able to seek treatment for, as soon as possible and for assistance with withdrawal symptoms, if self-withdrawing, followed by blood tests.
23. No monitoring in blood tests for side effects of pharmaceuticals, alongside illicit substances were obtained, so that results on any effects, did not follow correctly.
24. Since the side effects of sudden crack withdrawal, such as nausea, depression & suicidal thoughts, anxiety, fatigue, and muscle pain, can be very intense they should be monitored by a healthcare professional and in Edwards case when he was in hospital, they were not.
Neither was his blood monitored for the vast amounts of pharmaceuticals drugs given.
25. In fact, Edward and his next relative Mary voluntarily attended the ‘Camden Mental Health Drug Services’ and saw psychiatrists there voluntarily, on five different occasions and were refused any help whatsoever! Camden said they can only deal with heroin addiction. A gap in the service, with zero ‘rehabilitation’ services for those asking for it, as Edward did.
26. Edward during lockdown asked his GP also for ‘help’ for a ‘replacement’ such as codeine.
The substance crack is so addictive the subject of that addiction can begin to lack agency on the addiction, so if they ask for help, they clearly want it, it therefore should be provided.
27. Instead Camden’s unspoken policy is to lock up addicts and ignore drug addictions diagnosing them wrongly as mental health issues.
28. This is wrongful incarceration for taking drugs and should be immediately redressed.
29. The two cannot be joined together and therefore many are locked up illegally right now.
30. One requires rehabilitation, that is not available for crack only heroin, Edward and his next relative were told.
31. Yet it was used against him to wrongly obtained detention and torcher, to nearly 50 year old man, with no criminal record, with a very small but manageable addiction for pain relief of his hernia and for some PTSD for his difficult past, by way of the administration of much more lethally dangerous (and fattening drugs bearing in mind his hernia when he always said he remained thin due to that), to his particular system, as well as wrongful sedation and incapacity of normal bodily functions causing him embarrassment and humiliation too.
32. The components of cracking coca leaves, is arguably less dangerous than clozapine or (now banned) sodium valproate or even a mix of the two causing myocardritis.
33. Clozapine often given in Camden, (potentially unlawfully) in collaboration with corporate’s, according to Imperial College London’s research in April 2022 shortens life expectancy by 14 years. This is a drug of choice by Camden for drug addicts with no monitoring of the mix of illicit drugs or the drug itself, in the research, which is ridiculous.
34. Mental health cannot be considered in most cases to be permanent, it’s like breaking an arm, the mind can also heal after a good supportive plaster cast and with the right support.
35. Drugs in hospital of a pharmaceutical nature are very often it would seem, given in experimental cocktails by practitioners with no consent or information given as to what they are for just an elite ‘I know best’ attitude but are proven by research, to be more dangerous to addicts and have more side effects than street drugs.
36. Taking the pharmaceutical drugs do not lead to better outcomes, in fact they have poorer outcomes for addicts, who now have two lots of drugs in their system and are being falsely monitored for one set. Never mind what the blood monitoring proport’s to suggest.
37. One is the chemical cosh, often forced on them by way of humiliating and definitely non-consensual pinned to the floor injections, either initially on the hospital premises, where in Edwards case, he woke up naked or in other cases bribed into them, by way of release into the community, if, the patient complies, and the other set of drugs is the street drugs.
38. Patients with low self-esteem and an irresistible, drug fuelled, reliance on randomly dated, enormous, amounts of mental health disability benefits money, only encourages drug use. Edward called this ’mentally nil’ meaning spending all the money then at once.
39. For complying to injections, addicts will simply take whatever drugs they are told to take and use their then enriched mental health status, Edward called the ‘mentally nil’ syndrome, and he had a website about it, to purchase street drugs, as soon as they are freed. Domains www.menatllynil.co.uk and www.mentallynil.com are owned by Edward (websites down).
40. They are then vulnerable to dealers often already in the fabric of the psychiatrist culture and long stay hostels, woven into police cultures, such as traps by the home office ICE, initiatives in the control of drugs.
41. Patients who find themselves in this cycle of abuse by the authorities, can be rightly paranoid and as such this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with undercover officers patrolling parks and hostels, for small drug use, sectioning/arresting extremely vulnerable people leaving them in danger this psychiatric abusive system.
42. Mental health has to be treated with kindness as a social care issue with safeguards, there is no place for dual diagnoses, non-accountably. Either you are mentally ill or you are committing a drugs crime, like the rest of society.
43. One does not excuse the other. Currently violent criminals are in Camden, on bail, using ‘mental health’, in the community or in psychiatric hospital, an exposure waiting to be had.
44. Mental health is often not permanent, if it was, we should all worry, if we have a mental health issue such as a bereavement or a term or episode of anxiety and stress leading for good and real reasons to a breakdown.
45. If we allow society to see the person, who may for example have had a tragic upbringing or had an illness to become the target of more abuse, by a system, without wellness, being its goal, then we cannot offer, accountable social care. We are effectively offering nothing.
46. Edwards views on mental health drugs were well known, he had a right not to be drugged. He was with Hammersmith and Fulham mental health and was only on aripiprazole 5mg or 15mg mainly, so he did not give informed consent, and when asked he refused to give his consent. He was a 50-year-old middle aged man he knew his own views up until the point where Camden took his views from him and his dignity.
47. In 2021 his next relative Mary obtained his full ‘medical notes’ which were doctored to show he had a history of being given sodium valproate, this was an attempt to pervert the course of justice following the initiation of this complaint and this was to back up Highgate hospital sedating the sense out of him and abusively completely knocking him out.
48. Without any investigation by the PHSO his faked full medical notes evidence obtained, painstakingly by Mary, given to her by all Edwards Hammersmith GP’s, may never be seen.
You have to ask yourself why they would go to such extraordinary lengths to fake his notes.
49. I warned Edward that Camden now knew that the complaint was with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and to be now very, very, careful as of Sept 2021. Yet we are just only now dealing with this two-years on. That’s not right. It protects, no one immediately! Systems with lawyers and connection’s protecting themselves first and foremost.
50. Relatives weren’t informed when they had Edward locally to myself at A&E, a five- minute walk and therefore, we were not able to judge the validity of sectioning him, for ourselves except that some members of family, forced their way in and found him scared but normal. Being held for 12 hours without sectioning him and then suddenly sectioning him when the relative arrived.
51. It can be argued that if he had broken his leg, a relative would or should be told and can see him for themselves that the is true and/or valid. This became a pattern where he was forcibly taken and no information was forthcoming until was way too late to prevent harm and who knows what happened the evening of his death as that’s been covered up too.
52. There was no financial accountability for the services that were not provided to him prior to admission, for example a lack of a ‘care co-ordinators’ input and then an electronic fabrication of events, that did not take place, easily signed into a lying and fabricated system. One in which the coroner went out of her way to ask the care co-ordinator if he ‘could have made mistakes’ in a digital system, when Mary proved visits did not take place since she had evidence of Edward not even being in London but then, in Hastings with her.
53. Edward slept with his feet to the door so that he could stop them sectioning him at night. This caused him enormous anxiety. He felt unsafe and was right to feel that.
54. Despite Mary his next relative writing explanatory emails, to stop the injustices Edward was now facing, about how his human rights being so regularly breached, like a prisoner of war and being taken whenever they wanted from a cell of a room, they called his home she was ignored too and even Edwards solicitors found the whole incarceration unlawful.
55. The CQC does not respond in timely manner to stop abuses occurring and should be made redundant, as an aid to continuing the abuse. They need a fast-safeguarding service.
56. The CQC has no immediate safeguarding alarms in place to stop abuse. in one complaint it was the ambulance service that stopped Edward being abused as he couldn’t breathe.
57. Even so A&E found it difficult to access Edward, when he was found unable to breathe since he had been drugged up so much so, that his respiratory system was at collapse.
58. He had contracted pneumonia twice in two separate occasions, of the five sections, in two years, due to respiratory suppressing drugs and the damaging, administration of them. He had a heart condition a hole in his heart since birth and yet they administered large doses of experimental drugs, damaging his heart and made him ill when he was very fit.
59. Edward cried so much, he told his sister, ‘Mary I will die crying’ the abuse was criminal.
His Father had physically abused him as a child, so that would be a bad trigger for him, mentally as a man of great dignity, with no criminal record, to end up being ‘restrained’.
60. Then to add insult to injury as if possibly on purpose or certainly with knowledge as all family members, his 6 siblings told staff and authorities, they suggested his ‘Father’ was his ’nearest relative’ prompting a cycle of events, to effectively have his, non-contact, by way of a local authority care order since 11yr-old, ‘Father’, have to sign him over to his own, well established ‘next relative’ and next of kin, to which by way of information, was easily obtained, by Edward and Mary, she had had no contact with their Father for three decades.
61. As if anyone would have their abuser, that prompted care proceedings, as their ‘next relative’ that was certainly insane by the MHA by anyone’s standards in terms of common sense but could have led to abuse! That situation, abused Edward’s family in itself and was never really repaired, due to arguments over contact, with someone, few had contact with, yet, we were now forced to.
62.They knew of this by way of email from the 18th March 2021 yet they continued bizarrely.
63. This can only be, to have abused the MHA, in any abusive way possible, to keep Edward.
The lengths that they went to showed no duty of care and no common sense.
64. They even obtained Edward’s father’s number and spoke to him, to give him ‘next relative’ authority, if they could have managed to, by way of sending him the paperwork.
65. His Father, to his credit, saw that game too and did not appreciate it either, as relations although strained, with the past, had remained for decades at a truce, where his Father didn’t bother us and we didn’t bother him but that, was very abusive to our family of seven siblings, that had been in care from 2-years old to 14-years old, all of us were taken away.
66. Edward and his family of six siblings, were all very much abused in a ripple effect, by the situation of abuse and injustice, of their loved brother, so much so they had a WhatsApp group called ‘Ed Care’ that can be provided for contemporaneous investigation evidence.
67. The siblings attended meetings and sent parcels and yet money was taken, in one. Incident £100 for days, and vapes were said to be ’lost’ yet turned up later upon enquiry sometimes lasting days.
68. Edward spent his 50th Birthday locked up which was so upsetting for him and for us all as we always had dinner together, so we all attended the ward during covid, to cheer him up, with pink Moet champagne, flowers, clothes, sweets and 50th balloon’s, that was hard.
69. Edwards liberty was played with, leave was not provided and had to be hard fought for.
Edward upon every legal avenue, being ignored by way of discharge, eventually broke out.
70. With being chemically coshed his motor movements were compromised and he was again caught sleeping in his bed, at his cell for a home, expensive, mental health service setting and was of course taken and sent back to square one, at the mercy of his captors.
71. The very same people who had already discharged him, before with me, as the ‘next relative’, still played the game, of me not being recognised as ‘next relative’.
72. Meanwhile the torcher continued as they had all the power and wilful ignorance.
73. If in April 2021 they were told ‘formally’ again, by email, Edward had a hole in his heart, why was this not taken into account when providing sodium valproate?
74. Were they weakening his system and causing long term or even short-term damage wilfully or just ignorantly.
75. He died with a red mark near his heart and an unexplainable amount of blood in his lungs.
76. These emails took time to construct, causing stress as it dominated an entire part of the’ next relatives’ life every time he was sectioned. Only to be ignored in the same disrespectful and abusive way he was.
77. With a complaints system not actively fit for purpose and long-winded inquiry type watchdogs, acting slowly in ‘normalising abuse’, in a culture that is an elitist authority, with an outrageous ability, to put a chairperson of an independent tribunal as an in-house Camden figure. How can that be seen to be impartial? The chair was so condescending!
78. I as the ‘next relative’ had already attended meetings and ward rounds in covid and to my horror, as a mask wearer, witnessed (and photographed on Ed’s Birthday) numerous staff without masks, with no vaccines being given or offered to patients at all, so it’s no wonder, how many died therefore of covid?
79. After Edwards release no monitoring of his bloods or side effects of meds was offered.
80. It took well over a month to establish me a ‘next relative’ even though it was known.
81. Then the MHA 1983 was abused again, when the practitioner abused it by banning my formal request to release Edward. This was now game playing. Uphill-struggle for justice.
82. Since I cannot complaint to the you about the clinician, I refer you to the abuse of the MHA by others, assisting the clinician, in false detainment by means known to them under the act and the use of the act whenever they could to delay release as I can evidence.
83. The clinician did not use the ‘banning order’ clause before my attempt to secure his rights to justice, and they used, through systems known to them, and not available to him and to me, that as their last card, which felt so abusive and disheartening to Edward.
84. The MHA therefore was in effect abused by the hospitals MHA staff, to assist them and that is not the function of the MHA office.
85. They showed no attempt protect the rights of the patient, which is their function.
86. I believe that should be their function, as that is what they are paid for in MHA offices.
87. This in-house system often on the premises, therefore shows that there is room for familiarity and abuse by the staff. They are using the MHA office for their own protection.
88. These places cannot be therefore on-site, staff should be regularly changed, to prevent familiar abuse, or behaviour.
89. Conflicts of interest should be declared where known and therefore avoided, in a system that prides itself with MHA offices, for safeguarding patients.
90. This case shows them to be compromised and therefore of no service to patient’s.
91. MHA offices were not designed to help practitioners get away with bad practice, aided and abetted by workers, that know each other and protect one another, in meetings.
92. It’s corrupt.
93. I complained separately to the General Medical Council about the clinical practitioner and safeguards that should have been in place, for a second opinion and a second doctor outside of the practice area.
94. This did not happen as it was meant be under the MHA 1983.
95. So that is a valid complaint for the PHSO.
96. Edwards medications, dosages and timelines, further to me being established as the ‘next relative’, were not sent to me in timely fashion or at all.
97. Meanwhile Edward was bribed to take a further cocktail of meds or he could not go out to the shop with staff. Namely lithium which he stated that he hated and had terrible side effects where he could not walk.
98. I could no longer communicate with him coherently and he was still saying he was being assaulted by others in there and by staff pinning him down.
99. The barring order meeting was held and I was skilfully banned by the chair from speaking.
100. This was abusive.
101. However, despite this I had also written evidence which was not looked at, by the panel, that stated again and again the dangerous situation that was occurring, namely that medically he has a hole in his heart and was born with that.
102. He has a hernia so that cannot burst with fat inducing lab drugs.
103. He has respiratory problems on the lab drugs, also that some of them are prescribed for dangerous dogs.
104. I finished the tribunal, written submission with, “if I was, as his ’next relative’ removed, I would accuse them of attempted corporate/medical manslaughter”, such was my belief that it was their intention to harm him, as this was in no way seen by all our family, as mental health care.
105. I think it’s very difficult to argue with what is given prescriptively, to a persons under the MHA and if you read the side effects and to whom the relevant dosages are given to and they say for example, epilepsy or bi-polar or extreme schizophrenia and the person you know does not have those diseases or disorders, you feel incapable of complaint due to deference to psychiatrist, even when your relative is sedated in the community.
106. So there has to be a pharmaceutical, drugs watch line, to immediately alert a medical policing authority and an emergency response, such as an equivalent to 111 and a 999, or these places are murdering your relatives and you are indeed unable, to stop it happening.
107. I turned up and begged them once in the middle of the night to take him to A&E, as I had got a mobile to him, so he alerted me, he could not breathe. I turned up with an ambulance and staff and still was denied access to what is after all a hospital. He had pneumonia and could have died and that was the first section in 2019. They eventually had him in A&E emergency care the next day. He was in A&E with the same condition again another section. How can they do that to human being and it not be investigated by PHSO?
108. A society with no mental health accountability will and has been abused, as if date raped by the system. Not only compensation needs to act as a warning but corporate heads must roll and jail must be an option if found lethal. Only then will justice be served.
Please see video links of events in the scope in date order;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vayg_Rk7Xc4 8th July 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GpqgYTNjDM 8th July 2016 Edward’s Birthday
Ed gets arrested by Charing Cross police and is privately sectioned. He then get’s transferred to Camden and this is what he says on 19th Dec 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-ZTfgDE2C4 regarding his treatment in an NHS hospital, for mental health, in Highgate.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jH9kP7T-994 22nd Dec 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fI2BoNIA5c&t=2s Dec 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hmld_JBxXo&t=45s 25th March 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIT-t2rZVO8 29th Mar 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8rI9I7T5L8&t=4s 18th – 21st April 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc01r_vSXZk 27th April 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_Sy8hiO1XU&t=1s 3rd May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoKVHMOfs5k&t=2s 5th May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OJQpG0ff9w 5th May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjiqH3FgAiA&t=2s 6th May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDQzt_WeeJM 6th May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RcfL53bRME&t=1s 6th May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTZtPsWjJhQ&t=4341s 10th May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXScg5MW3aA&t=4s 18th May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx4HWJF9aAQ&t=5s 8th June 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdgvl3Oo5dM 9th June 2021
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1K-folY11zQ 9th June 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljzrYGJt5Go 12th Sept 2021 Hid Ed, found at morgue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D3KQfGi0AA 20th Sept 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB5Ff0JstVk&t=635s 20th Sept 2021
Thank you
Written by the claimant for and behalf of her brother Edward Moss.
Mary Moss 02/06/2023
08/08/2021 – Complaint accepted by
PHSO. 09/08/2023 Edward was
suddenly dead.
|
|
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE GROUP Fees Office Room
WG08 DX 44458 Strand T 0203 936 8957 Text Phone 18001 020 7947 6293 (Helpline for the deaf and hard of hearing) www.justice.gov.uk |
|
Ms Mary Moss marymossboss@outlook.com |
|
|
Date: 30/06/2023 |
Your ref:
|
|
|
Dear Sir/Madam,
Help with Fees reference: PA23-027192
Parties: Mary Moss -v- PHSO (Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman)
Your application has been approved for the fee of £154
Remission Expiry Date: 19/07/2023
Upon filing documents via E-File-
- Ensure your HWF reference number is clearly stated on both your documents and in the comments box on the submission page.
- If part remission is granted, please provide your PBA number (if applicable) on your documents to allow the Court to deduct the remaining fee balance from your account. If you do not hold a PBA Account, a notice to pay fee will be sent to you and further payment will need to be made. Failure to pay may result in your claim being struck pursuant to CPR 3.7(2)(i)
- Attach this letter as an associated filing to your fee paid document as proof of confirmation of Remission.
- When submitting your document(s) please enter your HWF or PA reference number under the HWF reference section.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Osei-Kuffour
Fees Office
Royal Courts of Justice
No comments:
Post a Comment