See also: • Cascading Oppression • Fractal Abuse • Authoritarian Paradigm Collapse
Children Services Abuse:
Letter to Director of Children's Services 31/01/2012
1 February 2012
Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Dave writes back to Ronald Taylor thanking him for his response.  He also points out that there are inconsistencies in the information he is getting regarding the statutory guidelines for the time scales for complaints.


80 Haslet Road – Biston - Sumshire – AZ1 1ZA
Telephone: 01234 567890 - Email: dave@inkomi.co.uk

Ronald Taylor
Director of Children's Services
County Offices
Oldacre
Chainton
AZ1 1ZA
31 January 2012





Dear Mr Taylor

Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate letter dated 24 January 2012.

On 22 February 2011 Damon Markham sent me a copy of a document entitled "How to make a comment or complaint.  Help us to help you." in which it states that, for a Stage Two Independent Investigation, there will be a response "usually within 28 days".  It does go on to say "However, if it is not possible to meet this deadline, you will be kept informed and a full response will be produced within three months."

28 days is four weeks.  Holidays aside, that would normally be the equivalent of 20 working days.  But 28 working days would usually be 5 weeks plus 3 days which comes to 38 days.  So I have no idea where the figure of 35 days, or working days, has come from.  And, incidentally, 35 working days is usually 7 weeks (or 49 days).  Just because someone says they will respond within 35 working days does not make it the rule.

65 working days (holidays aside) is 13 weeks which is 91 days.  91 days could be three months and is therefore approximately the same as the three months referred to in the complaints procedure.

You will understand at this point that the situation is unclear at the very least.  Obviously the complaints procedure document needs updating if the rules have changed and it needs to be more precise anyway.  If it means 28 working days or even 35 working days it should state that fact.  It reminds me of Astrid's immortal comment "It doesn't matter because no one ever reads these documents."

All that aside Mark Hughes had not kept me informed of progress after 28 days, 28 working days, or 35 working days.  It was only in response to my letter to you that he contacted me 39 working days after the beginning of the investigation.






He has now explained that Obelix is not yet responding to enquiries and sought my views on the report with or without her input.  I have conveyed to him in a letter dated 20 January that, much as I accept it is reasonable and desirable that Obelix is interviewed, it is not my concern whether that occurs or not.  I have said that I would want the report completed on time with or without Obelix's input.  I would add here that I am perfectly willing to accept a delay if an interview with Obelix is imminent and it would help you or your services understand this matter more accurately.  But, needless to say, I would appreciate being kept informed if that were your decision.

Once again, thank you for your positive response and I will await the report with patients.

Yours sincerely





Dave Hook
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP


Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Toxic Drums Share

© Sente Limited 2011