INSPECTION REPORT 13TH MARCH 2017
[THE OLD RECTORY]
We at The Old Rectory have taken the decision to make a statement about our last inspection report by the CQC. This is an unusual step but we feel that the report is completely unjustified and seriously misleading, and we think that serious error by the CQC need to be addressed.
We do not recognise the report to be either fair or accurate in its content, and to this end we will put online our Factual Accuracy Comments. These comments are requested by the CQC so as to correct any factual errors that may have occurred. We took the unusual step of using a specialist solicitor (Ridouts) to compile this initial response to the CQC. This was because we felt that the report was so inaccurate as to be misleading in the way it represents The Old Rectory. We content that the errors are not minor, and are extremely misleading as to the situation at the home.
Comments are made throughout the report that either offer no evidence to support the assertion made, or draw an unreasonable conclusion when evidence has been offered. A clear example of this is the part of the report that relates to hydration, where no evidence is offered to support the stance of the CQC. In presenting such evidence the CQC are obliged to present corroborative evidence that sustains the point being made, and yet they have failed to do so.
The part of the report that relates to Complaints fails to recognise that of the four people asked all gave some idea of how they would make a complaint to the homes management, despite having dementia and short term memory problems. This has been ignored by the CQC. Thes two points are only a few examples of the errors in this report.
The Factual Accuracy report is meant to give an opportunity for errors to be corrected.
We were so lacking in trust of the CQC’s report, that we requested the report be reviewed by an independent person within the CQC, not connected to the original inspection. They are required to do this when such a dispute arises, and as our solicitor advised, we should follow the same path. The CQC failed to do this, and the mass of evidence (the Factual Accuracy Comments and the 24 appendices submitted) was reviewed by the original inspector, who is most unlikely to alter their initial report as it is not in their interest to admit fault. Nothing was changed, and the report remains incorrect and misleading.
The CQC ignored a doctors letter, who was present during the initial inspection, that reiterated their initial point made during the inspection to the inspectors, that there are no concerns with regard to the care at the home, and that we are responsive to the needs of those staying in the home. The CQC have ignored this evidence completely
The CQC also ignored a letter from a current service users family member saying that they felt that the CQC were trying to get them to say something negative, and that they felt uncomfortable about the manner of the inspector. These concerns have been completely ignored.
The staff spoken to by the CQC on the day of the inspection (and quoted by the inspector) have said that they do not recognise the comments attributed to them, and that if necessary they will make sworn statements to that effect.
These are just two examples of how the CQC has completely disregarded substantial and tangible evidence that does not follow their narrative. The report is full of such inaccuracies that in correspondence with the CQC our solicitor has told them that they deliberately ‘supressed’ evidence that counters the report. All letters written by our solicitor are available to view also, and we are at present making a formal complaint against the inspector.
Please read the Factual Accuracy Report, along with all our correspondence vis a solicitor to the CQC, and a number of articles written about the poor practices of the CQC and their inspection teams.
We are available to discuss this matter anybody who has queries and offer further explanations if required. We have nothing to hide!
We do not recognise the report to be either fair or accurate in its content, and to this end we will put online our Factual Accuracy Comments. These comments are requested by the CQC so as to correct any factual errors that may have occurred. We took the unusual step of using a specialist solicitor (Ridouts) to compile this initial response to the CQC. This was because we felt that the report was so inaccurate as to be misleading in the way it represents The Old Rectory. We content that the errors are not minor, and are extremely misleading as to the situation at the home.
Comments are made throughout the report that either offer no evidence to support the assertion made, or draw an unreasonable conclusion when evidence has been offered. A clear example of this is the part of the report that relates to hydration, where no evidence is offered to support the stance of the CQC. In presenting such evidence the CQC are obliged to present corroborative evidence that sustains the point being made, and yet they have failed to do so.
The part of the report that relates to Complaints fails to recognise that of the four people asked all gave some idea of how they would make a complaint to the homes management, despite having dementia and short term memory problems. This has been ignored by the CQC. Thes two points are only a few examples of the errors in this report.
The Factual Accuracy report is meant to give an opportunity for errors to be corrected.
We were so lacking in trust of the CQC’s report, that we requested the report be reviewed by an independent person within the CQC, not connected to the original inspection. They are required to do this when such a dispute arises, and as our solicitor advised, we should follow the same path. The CQC failed to do this, and the mass of evidence (the Factual Accuracy Comments and the 24 appendices submitted) was reviewed by the original inspector, who is most unlikely to alter their initial report as it is not in their interest to admit fault. Nothing was changed, and the report remains incorrect and misleading.
The CQC ignored a doctors letter, who was present during the initial inspection, that reiterated their initial point made during the inspection to the inspectors, that there are no concerns with regard to the care at the home, and that we are responsive to the needs of those staying in the home. The CQC have ignored this evidence completely
The CQC also ignored a letter from a current service users family member saying that they felt that the CQC were trying to get them to say something negative, and that they felt uncomfortable about the manner of the inspector. These concerns have been completely ignored.
The staff spoken to by the CQC on the day of the inspection (and quoted by the inspector) have said that they do not recognise the comments attributed to them, and that if necessary they will make sworn statements to that effect.
These are just two examples of how the CQC has completely disregarded substantial and tangible evidence that does not follow their narrative. The report is full of such inaccuracies that in correspondence with the CQC our solicitor has told them that they deliberately ‘supressed’ evidence that counters the report. All letters written by our solicitor are available to view also, and we are at present making a formal complaint against the inspector.
Please read the Factual Accuracy Report, along with all our correspondence vis a solicitor to the CQC, and a number of articles written about the poor practices of the CQC and their inspection teams.
We are available to discuss this matter anybody who has queries and offer further explanations if required. We have nothing to hide!
The following saved files below are our solicitor's letters to the CQC complaining about the unfair treatment and inaccurate CQC report
Cover letter to the CQC
| cover_letter_18_5_17__1_.docx |
Ridouts response to the CQC
| ridouts_response_to_cqc_legal.docx |
Letter of complaint
| complaint_-_old_rectory_9_6_17___6_.docx |
We also have a copy of our factual accuracy response to the CQC with regards to our report
| factual_accuracy_form_final___3_.docx |
Here is an article from Ridouts LLP - They specialise within the care industry and have seen many care homes like ours,
become victims of CQC inspectors
become victims of CQC inspectors
| ridouts_article_easy_read_and__highlighted_and_original_to_prove_source.pdf |
Here is an article from another law firm that is involved within the care industry
| highlighted_version.pdf |