Cornish Based Solicitors Who Should Be Struck Off. Lucy Bryant of Coodes Solicitors.

3d-man-under-foot-28042397

Blog Posted 22 July 2016

Cornish Based Solicitors Who Should Be Struck Off. Lucy Bryant of Coodes Solicitors

The following will be the first of a series of blogs on Cornish based solicitors who, in my humble opinion, should be struck off for a variety of reasons.

The first recipient is Lucy Bryant who qualified as a solicitor in 1998 and joined Coodes Solicitors in 2001. Lucy works out of the firm’s Newquay office and is a Partner and a member of the firm’s “well respected criminal defence team”.

The most unexplained issue I had with Lucy was when she tried to con me out of between £300 to £400 for Legal Aid, which she advised me I could pay for by installments, shortly before I was due to attend trial. The payment was quickly waived when challenged and Lucy later that day sent me an email stating “We confirm that all our costs in connection with this matter will be met by the Legal Aid fund and there is nothing for you to be concerned about in that regard”, unquote. Which begged the question why she felt it necessary to concern me and put me under duress before trial with something that wasn’t actually true and which would have amounted to fraud had she been successful.

An earlier unexplained issue concerned a telephone conversation I had with Lucy on 15 January 2016 when I expressed my dissatisfaction with how Coodes was representing me and that I was considering contacting the Legal Aid Board to discharge Coodes. I received a letter the following day from Coodes dated 14 January stating Coodes had asked the Court to allow them to have the 2 NHS employee complainants attend the trial and that they may well play some of the recorded interview at trial.

Although I requested some proof from Coodes that they did in fact contact the Court on or before 14 January 2016 regarding the complainants and the recorded interview  I have not received any proof to date. I therefore have no problem alleging the letter dated 14 January 2016 was backdated and was actually written on 15 January and after my telephone conversation with Lucy and that I was knowingly lied to and misled. Further evidence is the fact Lucy made no mention of the alleged pro-active requests to the Court during our telephone conversation on 15 January 2016.

A little known fact is Lucy Bryant is recommended by the “Good Lawyer Guide” as being outstanding and highly recommended for suing people. Give it your best shot Lucy.

One thing I did find remarkable is that Lucy did not know who Simon JR Mansell MBE was in relation to my defence of ‘Extreme Provication’ against the Cornwall Foundation Trust and Cornwall Council. Simon being the then Principal Legal Officer of Cornwall Council and husband of Coodes Solicitor Jackie (Gilbert) Mansell.

Footnote : The recorded interview by Devon & Cornwall Police on 03 December 2015 at Newquay Police Station had been edited/tampered with.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is fully aware of the above and has found no reason to investigate.

Advertisements

Cornish Based Solicitors Who Should Be Struck Off. Jeremy Harvey of Coodes Solicitors.

 

3d-man-under-foot-28042397

Blog posted 30 July 2016

Cornish Based Solicitors Who Should Be Struck Off. Jeremy Harvey of Coodes Solicitors.

The following will be the second of a series of blogs on Cornish based solicitors who, in my humble opinion, should be struck off for a variety of reasons.

The second recipient is Jeremy Harvey, Partner, Head of Department (Employment) with Coodes Solicitors. Jeremy is a member of the Cornwall Law Society, The Law Society, the Law Society’s Law Management Section, a Council member of Cornwall Chamber of Commerce, and a past President of the Cornwall Law Society.

I was assigned Jeremy in April 2016 by Newquay based Coodes Solicitor Chris Andrews because he was unable to investigate my complaint against fellow Coodes Solicitors also based at Newquay. These being Stephanie Allen, Lucy Bryant and Mike Gregson with the Crime Department.

Although Jeremy predictably concluded there was no merit in any of my complaints against fellow colleagues and possibly friends, many issues remain unresolved.

One particular issue concerned why my Coodes defence team, Stephanie Allen, Lucy Bryant and Mike Gregson, did not stop one of the complainants, a Cornwall Foundation Trust Solicitor, writing, ranting and threatening me every month whilst I was under caution and later bail not to contact either complainant in any way whatsoever. That in my opinion Coodes Solicitors did not act in my best interest and neglected its Duty of Care to me.

In reply Jeremy stated “I am afraid that this is not part of the work that we do in advising you on the allegations and charges that you faced. That work and advice was publicly funded and we have to work within the scope of that scheme”, unquote.

So there you have it, my Coodes defence team could not stop me being harassed and threatened by a fellow solicitor because there was not enough Legal Aid money to simply write or phone the Trust Solicitor and say your conduct is unprofessional and wrong and you must stop threatening and provoking our client in this way.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is fully aware of the above and has found no reason to investigate.

 

 

Cornwall Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessments

cartoon_2

Blog first posted on 17 March 2014

        CORNWALL HOMECHOICE WELFARE PRIORITY ASSESSMENTS

There have always been double acts in life such as comedy duos Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise, Cannon and Ball etc.. Not all were funny though like Burke and Hare, Jekyl and Hyde, Clegg and Cameron etc..

Cornwall Council has it’s own double act in the form of Lytham and Warner of Cornwall Homechoice. Rachel Lytham, Housing Needs Officer, and Jon Warner, Homechoice Manager West/Central, mismanage Homechoice Welfare Assessments in the interest of the Council’s housing agenda rather than an applicant’s welfare needs.

That fewer applicants will be awarded the degree of priority they should be awarded to take the strain off the limited number of properties available and the Council’s legal responsibilities to certain types.

My first contact with Lytham and Warner was in correspondence regarding the potential of Homechoice bidders being duped into bidding for Homechoice properties which were ‘ringfenced’ and already allocated. A practise I believe which has gone on for years.

So how should a Homechoice Welfare Assessment work ?

The Homechoice Welfare Assessment Panel is usually made up of 4 Panel members and most of these are employees of the Council. Career minded team players if you will or brown nosers if you prefer. If the applicant disagrees with the decision made by the Panel the applicant can request a First Review Assessment which must be submitted within 28 days of the original decision/letter.

So how did it work in reality :

Background : My wife had had Mental Health problems for about 30 years and I was her officially recognised Carer for about 15 years and before she decided she needed her own living space against my advice. We then spent about 10 years apart but saw each other most weeks and she nearly always came to stay over christmas. Her MH began to deteriorate 2011-2012 and she was not coping and was living in squalor. We discussed a solution and decided to apply through Cornwall Homechoice for a 2 bedroom property where I could resume being her Carer and look after her.

We were first Assessed by a Homechoice Welfare Panel on 10 July 2012 and a decision was deferred in order for Homechoice to have my wife complete and return a Welfare Self-Assessment Form. This despite the Panel already having a completed Homechoice Special Needs Assessment Form.

The disturbing thing about this Welfare Panel is it consisted of only 2 Welfare Panel Members. These being the Housing Needs Manager Jon Warner and Occupational Therapist Angela White. Although our decision was deferred I have often wondered how many other applicants were assessed that day and awarded a level of priority which did not properly reflect their Welfare needs. That if it was appropriate and acceptable to have only 2 Welfare Panel Members conduct Welfare Assessments why should there ever be any more than 2 ?

The next Welfare Panel Assessment was on 16 October 2012 with a full compliment of 4 Welfare Panel Members. Social Worker Tony Grainger, Occupational Therapist Clemence Lincoln-Williams, a Community Psychiatric Nurse, and the Housing Needs Officer Rachel Lytham.

Having considered all the information available, including a letter of support from my wife’s doctor Dr Anthony C Hereward, the Panel awarded ‘Low Welfare Priority’ and agreed we met the eligibility criterea for 2 beds, and updated our banding to D.

Because we were unhappy with ‘Low Welfare Priority’ and did not think it reflected the level of need and urgency required we opted for a First Review. We were also unhappy being placed in the same category as Alcoholics and Drug users, who had all made a lifechoice decision, as opposed to my wife who had no choice.

According to Council First Review Policy “First reviews are re-assessed by the Welfare Panel that made the original assessment”, unquote, which was stated on the original decision/letter we received.

The First Review Assessment was on 27 November 2012 but was not re-assessed by the Welfare Panel that made the original assessment. Social worker Tony Grainger, Occupational Therapist Sarah Hill, and the Housing Needs Officer Rachel Lytham made up the 3 Welfare Panel Members. Of these only 2 were from the original assessment, the original OT was replaced and the all important Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) was absent.

The decision of the Welfare Panel was ‘Low Priority Upheld’, which was invalid because of the way it was unfairly achieved which broke Council Policy.

With me in disgust and my wife in despair we decided against anymore Homechoice Welfare Assessment fiascos.

I later found out Lytham twice referred to me as my wife’s “ex-husband” on the Welfare Assessment Panel Forms despite her knowing we were legally married. Something she still refuses to apologise for.

I continued raising questions with Lytham and Warner on emails and in early 2013 Warner suggested we be Assessed in another area where the Welfare Panel Members would not know us. An admission by Cornwall Council that a Welfare Panel in another area might in some way treat our application and assessment more fairly. We declined on the grounds the Council could not be trusted.

Official complaints were made during 2013 and the Council continued protecting only itself in not responding to them until too late. It was one of these complaints in May 2013 which involved the Local Government Ombudsman in this Complaint.

Between December 2012 to June 2013 we bidded for 45 properties through Homechoice without success. Not that any of them should have been successful given our disadvantage resulting from Council failures and the fact the Welfare Panel neglected to implement it’s option of a referral or a home visit for more information.

I understand from the LGO that the only information the Council was interested in concerned the installation of CCTV near where my wife lived. Although a minor issue, neither the LGO, Cornwall Council or Guinness Hermitage have shown any willingness to want to investigate this issue or provide me with any proof CCTV was ever installed.

My wife continued living alone and continued to deteriorate and was frequently tearful and depressed because she felt cheated and neglected and could see no end to it all.

Towards the end of May 2013 my wife was diagnosed as having a tumour on her liver. This was later diagnosed as secondary to late stage Bowel Cancer and Chemotherapy began before she was returned to my cramped and unsuitable flat for me to care for her. Homechoice was kept fully advised of the situation.

On 20 June my wife was rushed to Royal Cornwall’s A&E Department and she died 7 days later. The ‘Low Priority’ status remained with her to the grave.

Although I cannot blame anyone for her death I do blame Cornwall Council’s perverse and wilfull mismanagement of our application and for making the last year of my wife’s life so callous, abusive, unfair and depressing for her.

With regard to the Council, it’s team players, the NHS CPN and the LGO’s amoral protectionism of the Council, I have not finished with them.

With regard to the CPN, the NHS Foundation Trust has reminded me the decision of the Council’s Panel was a collective one and that they therefore all had a Duty of Care to my wife and were therefore all to blame. That because the CPN was not under contract to the NHS, and was not representing the NHS on the Panel, really, I cannot pursue an NHS complaint of Negligence against him. Him being the most qualified Panel Member to determine Mental Health issues.

Up-date : 20 March 2015 – Further investigation into this has uncovered a 2 year cover-up to hide the fact the NHS employee was not a CPN or a Mental Health Professional when he was a Panel Member. According to an explanation provided to the PHSO by the Trust he was a ‘Support Worker’ and “he was not acting in an NHS capacity whilst he was a Panel member”. Neither the Trust, the PHSO, the LGO or anyone else, is willing to explain in what capacity the Trust employee was a Panel member. A cover-up.

There is also evidence to show the then Principal Legal Officer with Cornwall Council Simon JR Mansell MBE and Rachel Lytham of Homechoice both misled the LGO into believing the NHS Support worker was a CPN which was a big fat lie.

If you or someone you know has gone through a Cornwall Homechoice Welfare Assessment and a First Review and was unhappy with the award you received, you could try a Data Protection Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Council. There is a fee of £10.00 to pay and the Council has 40 days to comply. It is unlawful for the Council to withold any information you are entitled to under the Data Protection Act. Mention Cornwall Housing/Homechoice and request the internal documents relative to your Assessment and First Review. Once you receive the information compare the Panel Members from the original assessment to that of the First Review. If different the decision was and is invalid. I personally believe the Council has probably duped thousands of applicants out of a level of priority they should have been awarded.

 

In memory to my late wife Alison – 12/03/1959 to 27/06/2013.

Prisoner in Cell 9 at Newquay

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Blog posted 01 July 2016

                                               Prisoner in Cell 9 at Newquay

Picture shows the moment Coodes Solicitor Stephanie Allen set their client up, myself, into agreeing to a charge of harassment in exchange for a caution only. Although I agreed the offer I was charged two hours later with harassment and bailed to attend Bodmin Magistrates Court a week before xmas. Coodes Solicitors assisted Devon & Cornwall Police protect criminality by Cornwall Council and the Cornwall Foundation Trust for their roles in rigged Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessments which cheated and abused the mentally ill and the vulnerable in 2012. An unlawful practice which continues to this day.

Ironically number 9 is my favourite number.