Claim No: K01CL630
Central London County Court The Strand
BETWEEN:
Edward Moss (1)
Mary moss (2)
Claimants
and
St Mungo’s Community Housing Association
Defendant
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS
Date 20th December 2023
Written by Mary Moss.
Ground 1. Adult Safeguarding and the Care Act.
First introduced by the Department of Health in 2011, but now embedded in the Care Act, these six principles apply to all health and care settings including St Mungo’s, mental health and drug sickness, known as an adult dual diagnoses, specialist local government approved facility, a charity/housing association, funded by government grants and housing benefit.
1. Empowerment
People being supported and encouraged to make their own decisions and informed consent
2. Prevention. It is better to take action before harm occurs.
3. Proportionality. The least intrusive response appropriate to the risk presented.
4. Protection. Support and representation for those in greatest need.
5. Partnership. Local solutions through services working with their communities. Communities have a part to play in preventing, detecting and reporting neglect and abuse.
6. Accountability. Accountability and transparency in safeguarding practice.
Edward Moss, 48 years old in 2018, had for two decades, no relevant history of mental health and no criminal record whatsoever. In March 2017 he suffered a very close bereavement and in 2018 he was twice operated on unsuccessfully, for a painful hernia.
Edward Moss was diagnosed at 19 years old, as a fully functioning paranoid schizophrenic, he was open to his GP, he was a class A drug user. He was on Aripiprazole 15mg, for 20 years.
He was monitored by a mental health team, including having a mental health social worker.
In 2018 with the above issues, grief and bodily pain, his drug intake increased and he fell foul, of a rouge police officer PC Karl Bassom, whom has since been convicted of gross misconduct, who started to pick on him, arresting him from his bed, at his then placement, in West Kensington, having been a resident of Hammersmith and Fulham since he was born.
Within a year, he would be made homeless for the very first time as his placement evicted him due to the police turning up, as he was harassed by officers regularly and made to attend numerous court hearings, for petty or made-up offences, often then later dropped.
Edward went on to suffer panic attack, from persecution, depression, sadness and grief. He did not deserve what happened to him, as events, in the pandemic left him dead in Sept 21.
19th April 2022 at the inquest into Edwards death, the coroner permitted the 24-hour CCTV surveillance, proceeding Edward’s death, the moment he entered alive, to his exit dead, to be shown to the family of the evening of 8th Sept 2021 until his body left, 6pm 9th Sept 2021.
On 22nd April, 27th April, 28th April, 29th April, 3rd May, 4th May, 5th May, 10th May, 12th May, 13th May, 17th May, 18th May, 19th May, the family emailed, St Mungo’s, for the 24-hour surveillance CCTV that the coroner has said the family can see and the family knew that the USB keys had been kept on viewable portable USB keys, by not only the order of the police on 09/09/2021 but this was then confirmed by staff, that they are on viewable USB keys.
Any issues of GDPR had been addressed by the coroner. ‘Permissions’ can be obtained by ‘third parties’, and footage can also be ‘pixilated’ of ‘third parties’ known as ‘redacting’ in the 2018 Data Protection Act, including staff or residents, if ‘permissions’ are not obtained.
The coroner didn’t need to order the footage at the inquest, due to time constraints and she had the Manager, who later viewed the CCTV’s, notes. The coroner says on 19th April 2022;
‘With regard to the Video footage, so, the CCTV and the body worn video, as I’ve said those are items that can be requested from St Mungo’s and the Metropolitan police, and certainly I expressed the view that access should be given to the family, for viewing that, particularly given the clear grief that you are all going through and if they take my view again, I’ll reiterate that position, I’ve already issued a direction for the fact but I will reinforce that.’
(Ref; Body Worn is another court case currently in action, in complaints at the High Court)
The coroner also then helpfully wrote to the defendant, St Mungo’s and said,
‘The service manager (who gave evidence on 19/04/2022) has said that the footage is still available and that the family can view it. Should the family make a request, I confirm that I have no objections to St Mungo’s showing the footage’
The second part of the inquest in May 2022 concluded, with an extremely low dosage, of drug and drink use, so this was said to be a ‘mixology’ death. Not a suicide or an overdose.
The moment the inquest concluded the defendant sent on the 22nd May 2022 an inadequate 11 seconds, of 24-hour surveillance, that only served to further heighten the family’s suspicions, that the placement was now actively committing an ‘act of omission’ by not complying with the coroner’s directive and the direct email to them, to comply, as directed.
On 27th May, 30th May, 31st May, 7th June, 19th June 2022, the family emailed asking the CCTV location of the 11 second footage, which isn’t original footage and is zoomed in, to obscure.
Lift and camera, 2nd floor of 24-hour CCTV surveillance, in all parts of the high security wing.
With prevarication causing further grief, the family has no choice but to make an N1 civil action claim on the 22nd June 2022, essentially to obtain the 24-hour surveillance footage.
The court moved office between Oct 2022 - May 2023, where cases at the Central London County Court were issued by another court, the other court stopped doing that work but retained the files, creating a backlog of files that needed issuing, including the claimant’s.
The claimants continue to email St Mungo’s on the 1st July 2022, 14th July,15th July, 16th July, 21st July, 27th July, 28th July, 12th Aug, 18th Aug, 11th Oct, 12th Oct, 14th Oct, 21st Oct, 1st Dec and on the 4th Dec 2022, due to the above delays at the courts, they emailed the St Mungo’s, Director, on 4th Dec 2022, serving them notice, outlining the claim in brief details, identical to the brief details in the N1 form, that had yet to be officially sealed then served.
The claimant’s ‘brief details of claim’ emailed to the Director, were as follows allegations of;
False imprisonment and sedation
Attempt to ruin Edward's reputation
Collaboration with the police and mental health team to falsely imprison and create inaccurate documents
Incompetence and lack of training of staff, to save life of vulnerable residents and prevent dealing on the premises
Cover up of my brother’s murder and failure to tell the family of his death in a timely and humane manner.
Although the claimant didn’t have the, necessary court stamped, sealed N1 claim form to serve as is required under civil procedure CPR rules, the second-best thing was electronic notice in Dec 2022 of an impending claim, hoping it would get them the 24-hour surveillance.
The ‘brief details of claim’ were emailed to St Mungo’s Director. There was no response.
The claimants continued to pursue the courts to issue, as well as emailed St Mungo’s.
In the sealed N1 form, issued and then served by the Central London County Court to St Mungo’s, on the 3rd May 2023, the ‘Particulars of Claim’, fully stated as follow’s;
1. On numerous dates from 2019 to 2021 Edward Moss was allowed to be taken directly from his bedroom to the mental health emergency department of UCH.
2. When finding him he was neither a danger to himself or others, and that can be the only cause to have him detained under the mental health act.
3. Workers were ill trained or over-zealous in mental health first aid and could be seen as libelous to Edward's good character, in written evidence, before and after his death.
4. CCTV has been ordered to be seen by the coroner and to date this has been withheld and prevaricated causing pain and anxiety to all Edwards family.
5. We believe that Edward was violently assaulted by the police/and or others, after attempting to abduct him again to be falsely detained and St Mungo's and staff, are covering it up, by lack of the CCTV disclosure and by way of police directive.
The defendant failed to reply to the courts this time showing contempt/and or tardy behaviour, but to the claimants this was indicating a further deliberate ‘act of omission’ and so the claimants applied for a default judgement. The default judgement was made on the 7th August 2023 and the claimant made an application to High Court enforcement to enforce. Before they did this though on the 17th August 2023, still wanting the 24-hour CCTV surveillance more than £40k, they further emailed St Mungo’s to let them know they had to pay or get a CCJ and this was again to prompt them into action but there was no response.
It seemed that this defendant was never going to give the family the footage but what could they be hiding and was this now amounting to civil fraud through an act of omission in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_Act_2006 2006 Fraud Act or was this 24-hour CCTV surveillance showing either drug dealing, (which the claimant is not interested in), or police presence in another section at 1am, that went tragically wrong resulting in a painful death?
Judge Common at Central London County Court 28th November 2023, where the defendant finally appeared to ‘apply to set aside the default judgement of £40k’, his honour kindly set the judgement aside but moved the case forward after 17 months, asking the claimant to serve fuller particulars by the 5th January 2024 and not to read lengthy legal submissions.
His Honour wanted these issues in particular to be addressed and used the wording, heads of civil fraud which may go to indicate grounds for the claim, however fraud is a seriously difficult area of law, so the claimant, since she and her family are looking for peace of mind as the coroner suggested, due to the clear grief that we are all going through, we will be happy to keep the grounds to ‘an act of omission’ under the ‘duty of care’ owed to our brother and us as a family. We are not going to pretend we know the law, when there are eminent, highly educated Judges that may feel the need to hold the hostel care sector to account, especially during the pandemic, when standards may have slipped and people got away with more unaccountability that civil law should allow, so we’ll leave that to the Judge.
If then we are left to present the case as to unlawful activities that did take place and then plead the case in doing so, that we need the 24-hour surveillance, as an incident of a similar nature ‘probably’ occurred, we use two ‘provable’ examples, of point 1. particulars of claim.
The reason’s for doing this, is to allow the court good clear causes of action and good grounds, as suggested by Judge Common, under ‘total loss of liberty’, grounds of ‘false imprisonment’ and ‘assault’, also maybe ‘civil fraud’ as an ‘act of omission’ not providing the 24-hour CCTV, to see that in these two instances alone, Edward should not have under Mental Health Act 1983 have been taken from his bed without being a danger to himself or others and then sectioned by one phone call, by St Mungo’s, to police in the night, to take him to A&E to then, as his honour Judge Common said, have his ‘total liberty taken from him’. This may also amount, to the presiding Judge, to see, that a forensic pathology police investigation, should have taken place and therefore, criminal charges might be outstanding?
On the 28th November 2023 hearing, at the Central London County Court, point number 3, in the particulars of claim was for the defamation courts, so we are left with point 1, 2, 4 and 5.
Addressing point 1. in the particulars of claim;
The MHA 1983 Act states on the first page two significant factors in relation to point 1.
Application of Act:
“Mental disorder”
‘To be sectioned, you must pose significant physical ‘harm to yourself or other’s’.
‘Dependence on alcohol or drugs is not considered to be a disorder or disability of the mind’
Two non-MHA, illegal detentions. The incidences causing St Mungo’s to section Edward;
The first incident;
This is a copy of an email sent to St Mungo’s Manager.
Sat 04/07/2020 18.16
Janet Martin
Dear Janet,
My brother Patrick and I were concerned that Edward had developed stomach colitis as he said to both Elena and Dotty his sisters that he had failed twice to make it to the loo and had to use his sink being caught short.
His room is a mess and has two mice in it he has complained.
I was meant to meet him today 4th July 2020 to tidy up his room but had been ill these last few days and had my phone off.
His 50th Birthday is on Wednesday and we had to pick him up for a picnic beside the canal and the food had been bought as well as 50th Badges balloons champagne etc and as stated the room clean was planned and I was due at his today.
I put my phone on had a barage of messages. It seems Patrick after speaking with two sisters Dotty and Elena had decided to call the hostel and express concern. You instead of helping him and getting him a room ensuite had him sectioned. Unbelieveable and yet no one helped him re his health problems.
I wish to complain that you had no right to section him for a health problem and further you should have helped him in over a year to tidy his room.
Regards
Mary Moss
The Families response
The second provable incident for the need for ‘disclosure’ of the 24-hour CCTV surveillance,
the claimant puts here, for use, at the ‘preliminary hearing’, to be listed after the 21st Jan 2024, once these fuller particulars are served by the 5th January 2024, is as follow’s;
The Families Response
This incident occurred at 4am. Edward’s family were not informed until 4pm on Saturday the 7th March 2021. When his brother Patrick went to see him in UCH and also put him on the phone to Mary, he explained lucidly what had happened. He said he carried the TV out the front door when he could not fix it and put it back onto the street. Both Patrick and Mary said that his behaviour was the same as normal, except that he was frightened to be in hospital, having had the police appear at his door. He said he also did not have two doctors so it was an illegal section. He was keen to leave as he had not yet been sectioned, however within an hour of family arrival, he was sectioned and driven by security with his brother following in his car behind, to Highgate mental health facility and not released until June 21.
It is evident from visiting Edwards 103 room that the small window only opens a few inches, so it’s impossible to throw out a television from the window. This is therefore a lie from staff.
The cell sized accommodation, is meant to be only a short-term assessment area hence why it’s 24-hour CCTV surveillance. It houses the newer residents, coming immediately from the street. A decant policy, in place to move residents after assessment, into better ensuite rooms upstairs, with kitchen facilities to cook, yet Edward was in room 103 for two years. His fridge was broken and he was frustrated as he had so many clothes he wanted to hang up and to cook an evening meal, since St Mungo’s only provided breakfast for the 56 residents.
Edward felt unsafe at St Mungo’s Endell Street, he said he felt like there was many bad things that had occurred in that building and due to the police constantly arriving at his room he ended up sleeping on his mattress, on the floor, with his feet to the door. He was frightened.
He shared the Dickensian cell facilities, with two mice, a single bed, a tiny sink and a fridge. He was a London Oratory educated man, from West London, he had just lived in an Edwardian style, mansion facilities, with a huge communal kitchen, his room being over 500 square feet. The Mental Health Act had a duty of care towards him, but as has been famously said before, ‘mental health care cannot be provided if a person is homeless’.
As the coroner pointed out, Edward spent all his time with his family having no friends in the transient hostel, full of bad vibes and a passive attitude towards actively helping residents.
Edward should not have been homeless and should under MHA, been accommodated.
Edward had 5 suitcases of clothes, a TV and DVD/Video and had to leave all else behind.
It could hardly fit in 2k P/M cell of room 103 at St Mungo’s Endell Street, Covent Garden.
These are rich charities, make no mistake, they are very, wealthy, despite their adverts.
Mary called Endell Street at 6pm 9/9/21, having told the family ‘Ed Care’ WhatsApp group set up due to Edward’s illegal detentions, that she had not seen him all day, when she normally saw him early, and in the evenings, as she had done the day before on the 8/9/21 and the day before that and every day for months before. She was told by the deputy manager, “haven’t the police contacted you, oh this is so difficult, your brothers passed”.
Patrick, Edward’s brother, called Endell Street, as they said he was still in his 107 room at 6pm even though they claim to have discovered him dead at 11am and so Patrick said he would drive to Endell Street, from Kent within the hour, as he wanted to sit with his dead brother but when he arrived, they said they had just moved him. Asking where they said, ‘you will have to contact Kentish Town police’.
The police had not given Mary Edwards next relative the mercy call, or ever contacted her.
The morgue denied Edward was there. They said he had had the post mortem and was in Poplar. As far as the family could ascertain, Edward may not even have been dead.
There was an immediate silence on Edwards whereabouts a witness who had seen him dead who worked at the swimming pool next to Endell Street, was missing in the coroner’s report.
A defibrillator wasn’t on the premises, so staff went next door to borrow one and an operator from the swimming pool staff was asked to attend to use it, as none of the staff were trained in first aid to do so. We still do not have witness testimony from her, as to when she arrived and what she saw. We only know from other staff that she was in so much shock that the ambulance attending to Edward had to also attend to her.
Mary attended the morgue at 5-6am on 12th Sept 2021 and despite denials, found her dead brother. His face was covered in blood. Having attained a video, sent it to ER in the USA, Edward, it seems may have been shot in the head. A forensic pathology CCTV expert will know. In the police reports, names changed from PC James declaring death to PC Actor.
