HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS OF ADULT ABUSE
PROCEDURES - YOU!
By Robert T Campbell

September 2005

The Protection of Vulnerable Adults Scheme, established under the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000, was implemented in July 2004 as part of a whole raft of measures brought in to ensure local councils put into place robust procedures to protect vulnerable adults by means of a multi - disciplinary approach. Based upon the principles established in the "No Secrets" and "In Safe Hands" papers, the procedures are intended to stop abusers falling through the "net" between the various agencies involved as it appears often happened in the past as a result of failures in communication.

There is no doubting that these schemes have resulted in a tightening up that will benefit the vulnerable but, as in all cases where there are winners, there are losers also - homeowners.

Local authorities have developed their own procedures for dealing with what many of them term "Adult Protection Alerts" so the detail of them vary. In my experience, however, the schemes are operated in much the same way so far as homeowners' rights are concerned - their rights are ignored.

I have dealt with many Adult Protection Alerts from homeowners' perspectives. Many's the time I have been consulted in circumstances where an allegation or allegations have been made, possibly anonymously, an Adult Protection Alert has triggered and investigations have been ongoing for weeks or sometimes even months before my client has even been made aware of the alert, let alone of the nature of the allegations themselves.

Adult Protection procedures fall to be managed by the Social Services authority in whose area the adult(s) the subject of the alleged abuse reside.

The Social Services department appoint an Adult Protection Co-ordinator whose job it is to organise a multi-agency investigation into the matter.

The first thing that normally happens is that the Adult Protection Co-ordinator will convene a meeting of all relevant agencies to discuss the allegation(s) and the meeting will usually be attended by Care Managers for residents of the home concerned, social workers, CSCI and the police. I have known of instances where as many as 20 people have been involved. 

All the way through this initial phase the Adult Protection process is generally kept secret from the homeowner who is not allowed to contribute even though he/she probably has more direct, relevant information to contribute than has any of the other participants.

The situation then is that a secret meeting takes place to discuss highly damaging allegations against the homeowner. Those present exchange views on the allegations, decisions are made on how to progress the investigation and it is almost inevitable that, on the "first impressions" principle, minds will, at least superficially, be made up as to culpability creating a mountain to climb for the home owner as and when the "secret" is shared with him and he has the opportunity to conduct his own investigation and then contribute to the process. I have actually seen minutes of a first "strategy meeting" (obviously not shared with us at the time) that contain a conclusion to the effect that it appeared more likely than not, on the basis of the contributions from those who attended the meeting, that the allegation was true.

There are sometimes justifiable reasons for not sharing allegations with homeowners immediately but in my submission these cases should be the exception rather than the rule. It has seemed to me that the decision to deal with these matters clandestinely is often considered too difficult to weigh properly and too often the decision lies by default in what is, in truth, the "easy option" on the basis that, since overwhelming public and political force lies behind protecting vulnerable people and virtually no sympathy lies in the direction of homeowners, their cries are unlikely to cause too much dismay. There are, however, in my submission overwhelming public interest and practical arguments for involving homeowners in most Adult Protection processes immediately allegations are made.

Firstly, getting the facts straight quickly. Viewed with the benefit of hindsight through minutes of strategy meetings it is clear that many of these processes proceed on the basis of incomplete and sometimes incorrect information causing the investigations to be fundamentally flawed from the start. Often a simple piece of information or the redressing of misinformation by a homeowner early in the process could have resulted in the investigation either not proceeding at all or going off in an entirely different direction. For example, in one case involving alleged financial abuse the early strategy meetings (of which there were several from which my clients were barred) were told by a social worker that the resident concerned had no next of kin whereas, in fact, she had a sister who visited regularly and knew all about her financial affairs. This resulted in a police investigation lasting over several months, the arrest and interrogation of my client (a lady of advancing years whose health suffered as a result) and a multi disciplinary process costing tens of thousands of pounds and lasting over 8 months. During this period my client's home was effectively "blacklisted" for referrals, she suffered very substantial financial loss and the damage could have caused the home to close with the loss of a home for all of the residents there.

The second argument is that, if there are serious allegations of abuse, these do not always relate to the home owner himself and, if he does not know of the allegations, he cannot take steps to secure his residents' welfare by perhaps suspending or supervising staff or mount an investigation himself. By the time he is able to do so the trail may well have gone cold.

Thirdly, we all have rights, even homeowners! One of those rights is to "natural justice", a common law term encapsulating a number of legal doctrines enshrined in case law to prevent basic injustice. Another is the right to fair procedures in civil and criminal proceedings conferred by the Human Rights Act.

It is my view that the Adult Protection process itself, whatever may be the outcome, usually results in dire and unfair consequences for the home owner himself (whether in stress, lost fees, damage to reputation or otherwise) and as such it should be conducted so as not to breach homeowners' rights save in limited and exceptional circumstances where to respect those rights would be to jeopardise the safety of any vulnerable people and compromise the investigation. As I have said these situations should be exceptional rather than, as currently is the almost inevitably case, routine.

The Adult Protection processes adopted by Local Authorities are being conducted secretly, in total disregard of rights of, or affects upon, homeowners many of whom have been brought to their knees by their impact. These vulnerable people feel they have effectively been tried, convicted and sentenced in secret without having had an opportunity to defend themselves and I often have much sympathy with this view.

It is time for the authorities to be made to recognise that there are consequences to these Adult Protection measures that affect people who are not in a position to defend themselves and they owe homeowners a duty to ensure the procedures are conducted openly, wherever possible, always swiftly and with as much involvement from homeowners as is possible and safe. If the authorities are to act fairly, properly and, may I say, lawfully the "easy option" is not an option in these cases. 


Robert T Campbell
September 2005 
Robert Campbell is a leading healthcare lawyer practising nationally.
0870 2412139
robert@carelaw.co.uk
www.carelaw.co.uk