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
5th Jan 2024
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.
This also
showed the entire building regulatory CCTV safeguarding was “not fit for purpose”.
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.
Under Part
31 disclosure and inspection of documents, early on the disclosure should have
happened and by it not having taken place a personal injury was committed.
On the 4th
Jan 2024, we have been updated, by the defendant that the CCTV evidence, the
police and coroner directed them to keep, has been tampered with and is now
suddenly unavailable. If that be true and we doubt this, then we will offer all
of the £40,000 in this claim as a reward to any member of staff who brings
forward their own USB of the CCTV.
We will see
this as a lawful contract of our intention forthwith.
New public
laws from disasters like Grenfell will ensure that act of omission’s can’t be
used by corporations and charities in the future as the public has little
appetite for this defence.
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 PC Zia Actor.
Dear Central London County Court,
I
submit an updated, attached sheet of fuller particulars, to go with the
original N1 form of June 2022 submitted and served then on Oct 2022 and
May 2023 respectively, fuller particulars requested to be submitted by
today, in Nov 2023 hearing, by Judge Common.
Unfortunately a map of the 1st floor was sent in my 20th Dec 2023 submission of fuller particulars as the 2nd floor, so this has been changed by me today, with a small edit of the CCTV requests.
The
legal submissions will follow towards the end of the hearing as is
practice, once the case has been listed for the first time on the 21st January 2024, as ordered by Judge Common, as a preliminary hearing or an actual court case itself.
The
defendant St Mungo's has indicated that it will seek a 'set off'
whatever that means, despite the enduring pain this has caused and is
causing but tactics as such are to be expected from them.
I hope some staff will leak the CCTV to us for the £40k, if we win, we are willing to pay any of them.
Please
note we have respectfully not escalated the amount sought and it will
remain modest as we just want peace of mind and the hidden truth.
Remember that we were told many facts that given a court arena we can prove are all lies and witnesses were hidden.
Kind Regards
Mary Moss
