Case No. 12800293
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCOP 63
IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
The Law Courts
The Quayside
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
NE1 3LA

Tuesday, 22nd November 2016

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR
Sitting as a Nominated Judge of the Court of Protection

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the matter of:

NEWCASTLE CITY COUNCIL 
Applicant
v
TP (by her litigation friend The Official Solicitor)
1st Respondent
and

FW
2nd Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by
Apple Transcription Limited
Suite 104, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES
Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counsel for the Applicant Local Authority: MR McCORMACK

Counsel for the Official Solicitor: MS GARDNER

Solicitor for the First Respondent Cartwright King Solicitors

The Second Respondent did not attend and was not represented

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
 JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR:

1.	I heard evidence yesterday in order to determine the factual background against which decisions as to the best interests of TP should be made.  The local authority asks me to make findings in accordance with the schedule of findings which it has provided to the court.  It is the local authority that brings this case and therefore the burden is upon it to prove the relevant findings sought to the required standard of proof, namely the balance of probability.
2.	TP is represented in these proceedings by the Official Solicitor who remains neutral in respect of the findings sought by the applicant.  Quite rightly, the Official Solicitor adopts the position that it is for the applicant to satisfy the court that the allegations contained within the schedule of findings are made out.  
3.	The second respondent, FW, has not attended court.  He came to court upon one occasion during the course of these proceedings but has chosen not to attend this hearing.  I am satisfied that he is well aware of the fact that the case is listed for hearing this week and I have been provided by him through the post with a number of copies of letters sent by him to Andrea Prescott, the solicitor instructed by the official solicitor.  The letters were received by the court on 18th November 2016 although the letters themselves are dated 31st October, 2nd November, and 11th November.  It seems that the second respondent is of the view there is a conspiracy between establishment figures and that the court is corrupt, and therefore he has decided not to attend at this hearing.  Thus, it seems there is no good reason why the case should not proceed in his absence.  He does not intend to be present whenever the case is heard.
4.	I heard oral evidence from Laura McDonald, who was TP’s previous social worker and from TP’s two sisters, SB and MR, and from Dr Annette Hughes.  SB and MR reside in the United States of America and I heard their evidence by telephone.  FW has provided responses in reply to the application and to the witness statement of Laura McDonald.  I have read those responses as well as the statements contained within the bundle of Laura McDonald, SB, MR, and the report of Dr Hughes dealing with her involvement with FW and TP prior to TP’s removal into the care home.
5.	The history and background set out by Laura McDonald is prepared from the records.  She accessed the case observations, case notes, and safeguarding minutes to enable her to set out in her statement information about matters prior to her direct involvement with TP.  She told me that she has looked at all the computerised records including the concerns noted from the police and ambulance men, from health and housing, and generally put together all the information available to the local authority in respect of TP.
6.	Laura McDonald was allocated to the case on 22nd December 2014 and therefore information contained in her statement as to matters prior to that date is taken from the records.  Thus, much of her statement is a narrative description of relevant entries made by colleagues and others.  This part of the evidence is therefore hearsay and I consider it having regard to section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995.  Mr McCormack, in taking me through the necessary evidence, has drawn my attention to what is contained in the relevant parts of the responses filed by FW.  In the same way as the evidence of the applicant, I attach the necessary and relevant weight to the responses of FW bearing in mind that he is not here and therefore has not been available to be cross-examined or assessed by the court.  
7.	From the information provided by Laura McDonald, a description of TP’s upbringing and background can be ascertained.  TP was born on 5th January 1955 and thus will be 62 in a few weeks’ time.  She is one of three sisters, SB and MR being her older sisters.  She was born with cerebral palsy and her parents, it is said, were extremely protective of her throughout her childhood and indeed her adulthood.  She lived with her parents until her mother died in 2003 and then in 2004 her father went into residential care and he died in 2005.  TP lived a very sheltered life and her contacts outside her home at that time were limited.  After the death of her parents, TP continued to live in the same large Victorian house in Gosforth where she had resided with her parents until that home was sold and TP was supported to move into a rented flat in Gosforth in the area with which she was familiar from childhood. 
8.	I heard from both SB and MR about the contact they had with their sister.  Although living in New Jersey, they told me they were in regular contact by telephone.  SB told me that she would speak to TP almost every day by telephone.  She would visit once a year, sometimes twice a year.  She wrote to TP and SB said that she had a close circle of friends with whom she was able to make contact and check up on TP’s wellbeing.  There were friends of her sister MR who would take an interest in TP and she told me there was a nice lady upstairs and there was MR who came to clean and would spend an hour or so talking to TP.  TP also went to the USA and stayed with her sisters on numerous occasions.  Both sisters described a warm sisterly friendship.  MR talked about taking TP out with her friends.  She said, “TP was capable of being close to us.  We took an interest in her.”
9.	MR then went on to describe it as a normal long distance relationship between sisters.  SB said that:
“The relationship was as good as we could have bearing in mind the distance.  We would tell her about what we were doing.  We were talking about the family until the relationship between TP and FW.”
Then according to SB, TP became more distant and would not engage with either herself or MR.  
10.	TP’s sisters are described as playing a supportive and active role in sharing information appropriately with Newcastle City Council adult services and supporting TP in making informed key decisions about her life around accommodation, finances, and accepting formal care services.  
11.	TP moved into her flat in 2009.  It is described as a rented flat owned by Riverside Housing who was part of the support services to maintain TP’s safety and welfare.  TP has a weakness in her right arm and leg arising from her cerebral palsy.  She is unable to use her right hand.  She has some unsteadiness on her feet but walks unaided.  TP has epilepsy which is managed by regular medication.  Sadly, she lost the sight in her right eye when she was about 19.  TP has had a knee replacement and has osteoporosis.  TP has learning difficulties.  She previously accepted support from Age Concern and had weekly counselling sessions with them to help with the depression from which she sometimes suffered and the emotional reactions she had to events in her life.  TP also had or was assessed as needing and had a service for four hours once a week whereby a consistent care worker would take her into the community which it is recorded TP enjoyed.  
12.	Laura McDonald outlined within her statement the services and support provided to TP until November 2010.  At the time that social work support ended, it is recorded that TP had stable formal care arrangements, supportive neighbours and friends, a regular routine and she had a telephone landline, mobile, and telecare equipment linked to the community care alarm service enabling her to seek support in the event of an emergency.  TP also had a routine and structure that promoted her independence in managing her finances.
13.	In 2011, TP began to decline support from adult social care to access her finances or engage in community activities.  The Community Care Alarm Service that was linked to a mobile community warden was cancelled on 7th May 2011.  It was collected from her home as TP stated she no longer needed it.  On 9th April 2011, the manager of the company providing TP’s care rang Newcastle City Council’s adult services contact point raising concerns that TP wanted to cancel her care.  A contact officer spoke with TP by telephone.  TP stated that she felt she was managing very well.  The contact officer formally ended care services.  
14.	The only service TP continued to accept from Newcastle City Council’s adult services was a weekly call to assist with domestic tasks and in February 2012, TP reduced her weekly domestic service to a fortnightly call.  It is documented that there was then the changes which have been described within those paragraphs.  SB described what happened when she visited in November 2011.  She told me that usually when she visited she and TP would go out together a lot, but on this occasion TP was going out all the time to visit FW and I quote from my note:
“She said she had to phone FW to tell him she wasn’t coming.  She seemed nervous about telling him, ‘I’m not coming’.  [SB then told me] I was there over a week.  She went every day for lunch and dinner and she was not with me and I knew things were not right.”
15.	She told me about visiting as she put it “the place.”  She said she was trying to be friendly but FW was not friendly at all, “It was an uncomfortable feeling.”  She said she returned there on the Sunday and again I quote from my note:
“TP told me he had a key.  He was very rude to me.  I was upset and shaking.  He told me to get out.  He shouted, ‘Don’t come here anymore.’  He was screaming at me.  TP chose not to leave with me and came home several hours later.” 
The following day on 21st November 2011, SB called social services and she made an adult concern referral which is documented.
16.	In March 2012, MR visited and stayed with TP.  She also encountered FW.  She told me about it.  On 30th March 2012, and again I read from my note:
“I had arrived the day before and I stayed with TP.  That morning, I came back with some shopping.  The door was open and I called her name.  KS came belting down the passage.  FW told me to get away, that I’d left a handicapped woman.  KS chucked my bags.  FW was yelling and screaming.  His finger was half an inch from my face.  He didn’t want her, TP, to have anything to do with us.  Both KS and FW were yelling at the same time.  He said, ‘We’ve changed the locks.  You can’t get back in.’  I was there approximately ten minutes.  I think TP said, ‘Let her in.’  KS, in a very commanding voice, said, ‘No, no, no, she can’t come back in.’  TP was quite calm.  I phoned SB and SB called TP and TP answered the phone in the flat and she said, ‘Happy birthday’ to SB as it was her birthday.”
17.	It was put to MR by Mr McCormack on behalf of the local authority that FW in his responses had said that she was drunk and abusive to TP and that she, MR, had made threats.  MR told me in her evidence that the evening before, she had met a couple of friends in the pub and that she had had a glass of wine.  A letter had arrived from social services to say that they were coming on the Monday to look at the bank book.  MR told me that she said to TP:
“‘I can help you’ but TP said she had taken the letter to FW and I said, “What did you do that for?  I was not drunk nor was I abusive.  I got a taxi after this and went to the police station.  A friend met me there.  My friend called TP and we met in a café in John Lewis.  I went and got TP another cup of coffee and round the corner KS was sitting there.  TP was obviously aware of this and said, ‘I don’t know why she drags her mother out, she is ill.’  I asked TP to meet me on the Thursday.  On the Thursday, I waited for one and a half hours and TP didn’t come despite the fact that she had said that she would come and the last time I saw her in person was on that occasion in the café in John Lewis.”
18.	There were further concerns documented.  The police attended following MR’s complaint and it is recorded that two women, TP and KS, were reluctant to speak to the police without FW present.  Dr N, TP’s GP, contacted social services to express concerns about FW and KS who attended the surgery with TP and were shouting and aggressive to the staff.  Adult services were concerned about possible problems that TP had with her finances and, indeed, the police had expressed similar concerns.  TP stated that FW had her bank books, cards, and that she met him once per week for money.  She had no recent financial paperwork in her home.  SB and MR had helped TP with her finances but they said that TP was now refusing any help from them and would not listen to advice.  TP also declined any help with her financial situation from anyone at social services.
19.	Adult services continued to have concerns and Louise Mitchell-Rayner visited on 24th April 2012 with a financial assessment officer.  FW and KS were present and the record indicates that FW recorded this visit.  He responded to the majority of questions asked of TP even her name, address, and marital status.  He requested a copy of the financial assessment form at the end of the visit.  The local authority was anxious to complete a Mental Capacity Act assessment.  It had considerable concerns about TP.  Dr N assisted by setting up an appointment to speak to TP on her own.  TP attended with KS who objected to TP being seen alone but TP was happy to attend the appointment alone.  An assessment was completed and it was determined that TP lacked the mental capacity to manage her finances.  Concerns continued.  Dr N had been TP’s GP for, at that stage, 17 years and she said that she thought that she had a good relationship with TP.  She usually saw TP twice a year for epilepsy and medication review and over the years, she had seen TP throughout the year.  Dr N was concerned that she had seen much less of TP and that TP had not responded to a letter from the surgery asking TP to come in for her epilepsy review.  Dr N said that that was unusual.
20.	On 29th June 2012, the local authority became the financial appointee for TP.  Attempts to discuss matters with TP were unsuccessful.  It is recorded that FW dominated any conversation and when conversation was directed to TP, it is recorded that FW became verbally aggressive, shouted, and spoke above TP in a demeaning manner.  Any attempt to speak to TP directly was interrupted by FW and sometimes KS shouting in an intimidating and confrontational manner.  FW that he had been looking after TP for approximately 17 months because of Newcastle City Council’s neglect of TP.  He said he was, “In charge of TP and her money” and that he was, “Charging £200 for meals per week.” 
21.	On 5th August 2013, the local authority was appointed as deputies.  Attempts were made to discuss this with TP.  TP confirmed that she was continuing to pay £200 weekly to FW for food.  Her benefits had been assessed at £211.40 per week.  It was apparent that TP was not accessing any of her money from the council and she could not confirm what bank her money was in, or whether she drew any money out when she was asked about it.  TP was offered the help of an independent advocate.  She declined.
22.	On 12th October 2012, the phone account, although up to date, was closed at TP’s request.  SB , I think, told me that it had been the same phone number since about the 1950s.  More particularly, the telephone calls to and from SB and MR could no longer take place.  Shortly thereafter, TP stopped attending at [college stated] which it was said she previously had enjoyed.  It is recorded by Louise Mitchell-Rayner in November 2012, set out at C13 in the bundle, paragraph 84:
“More recently, there has been an obvious disengagement from services.  TP has not responded to telephone calls, letters, and on the rare occasion I have met with her in person, she has been submissive to those she is with or, if alone, very negative about social services.  This has never been evident in previous involvement with TP.”
23.	On 23rd January, a lead officer from Service User Finance, Cher Thompson, contacted Louise Mitchell-Rayner as TP was at the Civic Centre requesting access to her money.  TP reluctantly agreed to meet with Cher Thompson and Louise Mitchell-Rayner.  TP presented a letter from a bailiff company known as Marstons. The letter was addressed to TP regarding outstanding payments for parking fines. Cher Thompson advised that this could indicate that the car was registered in TP’s name.  TP said it was something FW had done.  TP was unable to explain if she owned a car or how it had been purchased.  The amount of payment requested by Marstons was £363.83 and £219.83.  The other two due to go to the bailiffs that night were for the amount of £112 each making a total of £807.66.  TP told Cher Thompson and Louise Mitchell-Rayner that FW told her she needed to get some money as she does not have any money left.  Louise Mitchell-Rayner and Cher Thompson enquired about her bank and if she knew who she was banking with.  TP was not able to say who she banked with and only that FW had changed her bank to get a higher rate of interest.  TP stated FW still had her bank book.  
24.	In April 2013, TP as a result of problem with KS spent some time in Y care home as an emergency placement.  A Mental Capacity Act assessment was completed and TP was found to lack capacity to make the decision to return home.  It is recorded at C15, paragraph 106:
“Louise Mitchell-Rayner and Jan Stevens, team manager adult care services, in consultation with the council’s legal services considered that although it was a very difficult decision, it was not in TP’s best interest to remain in residential care and the least restrictive option was for TP to return home with a protection plan in place.  It was noted that there was a risk that TP would disengage from the protection plan.  The protection plan included the locks being changed, KS being removed from the property, and care services, Community Care Alarm Services, reinstated, and that there would be attendance at the general practitioner.  However, Community Care Alarm Services reported that TP would not let them in.”
25.	It was recorded and set out at paragraph 116:
“On 10th May 2013, Ross Bradley of Parking Services alerted adult services of his concerns for TP.  He reported that on 25th September 2012, a duplicate blue badge was requested by FW on the grounds that the original blue badge was lost.  One week later, a replacement badge was issued.  On 4th March 2013, FW was found using the allegedly lost blue badge.  A penalty charge notice was issued and FW was interviewed under caution on the grounds that FW had requested a duplicate blue badge fraudulently.  Parking Services alerted us to their concern that FW is financially abusing TP and that FW will continue to coerce TP to take actions to her detriment for his gain.  On 21st May 2013, LMR and DT visited TP’s home to discuss this, to check her welfare, and to provide cash to TP, to discuss further options for accessing her money, and to discuss a letter received from the DWP indicating that TP had incurred a £700 fine for unpaid speeding tickets, plus 6 points on her provisional driving licence which will be deduced from her benefits.  LMR and DT asked if TP was still paying FW for her meals.  TP stated that she did not know but thought she no longer paid.  LMR asked if TP was no longer being charged for her meals due to a reduction in her savings, but TP could not confirm this as FW had all the information in relation to TP’s savings.”
26.	There continued to be various recordings of attempts to engage with TP by adult services in respect of her finances, her money, and Dr N had pointed out that clinic appointments, orthopaedic appointments, and medical reviews had been missed.  There was considerable concern about TP’s welfare arising from a number of sources in addition to social services or adult services.
27.	On 29th July 2014, it is recorded at C20, paragraph 148, that:
“David Thackery visited TP to give her £200 of her money.  When TP opened the door and saw David Thackery, she stated she should not have answered the door and that she will ‘get wrong’ for speaking to him.  She declined the money and stated she wanted her money paid to her bank but could not provide David Thackery with the bank details.  TP confirmed that FW had told her not to accept money stating FW was looking after her making sure she was safe and feeding her.  David Thackery advised that she needed to speak with adult services to sort out access to her money and TP said, ‘I didn’t realise.’  [David Thackery recorded] I feel that TP is either not understanding the situation, or she is frightened of the repercussions of either making a decision without consulting FW or she is frightened of having any contact without his knowledge.”
28.	All these matters, of course, are taken from the records provided by the local authority.  There are numerous recordings of involvement by adult social workers and others with TP or, rather, attempts at involvement with TP. 
29.	On 25th September, David Thackery and Peter Grundy, the adult services care officer, visited TP.  David Thackery noted that FW physically pushed TP towards the front door.  FW informed them they were not allowed access.  After some discussion they were invited into the house.  FW shouted at TP to direct them where they could sit.  FW informed that he was not happy with the current situation and that the council had stopped TP’s money and that he was having to support her.  David Thackery tried several times to interject.  However, FW shouted over him.  FW made reference to taking legal action against the council. David Thackery reports that he was threatening and aggressive in his demeanour.  FW stated that someone had to look after TP as she has “the mind of a 12-year-old.”  TP stated she wanted her money back in her bank account and FW stated that he wanted “their” money returned.  David Thackery recorded the following:
“I advised that it is TP’s money and that she knew she could have this as I could arrange to have her money either dropped off personally by me weekly, or I could arrange for it to go direct into her bank account.  TP stated that she would like this.  FW interjected again and stated that I was bamboozling her and trying to trick her.  I clarified to TP that her bills would be paid by adult services financial section and the money which was left would be paid to her bank account.  She smiled at the prospect of this, however, FW raised his voice and stated that she did not want anything like that.  I advised TP that we are trying to help her.  FW stated that we have not helped her and what we were doing was abuse.  He stated that no one has been in touch and TP has been left alone.  I advised that I had visited several times and that on my last visit I offered money and TP said she would get into trouble for speaking to me.  FW became more aggressive in his response and stated again that no-one had visited.  I advised that I have attempted to make contact, as has my colleague before, however it was under his instruction that TP declined help.  FW became increasingly confrontational and stated that I had better watch my back.  Throughout the discussion, FW was consistently aggressive, overpowering, and confrontational.  He would not allow anyone to speak, including TP.  At times, when he asked a question he would not allow anyone the opportunity to answer.  At one point, Pete advised that he was not being allowed to answer a question and FW stated that it did not matter as he knew what the answer would be.  They were asked by FW to ‘sling your hooks’.”
30.	All these matters, as I have already referred to, have been taken from the records provided by the local authority except of course from the direct evidence of SB and MR.  I am very aware of the fact that I have not heard directly from the individuals who made the notes.  My experience also informs me that inaccuracies can occur when details are being recorded.  However, I have to look at this matter and it would be disproportionate to require the makers of each entry to attend court to give direct evidence.
31.	I am satisfied that the records over the period of time from 2011 to December 2014 provides a pattern which even if there have been some misrecordings, the detail and consistency in the descriptions of the behaviours of FW and TP and indeed KS enables me to be satisfied that the local authority was justified in being extremely concerned about the wellbeing and safety of TP.
32.	Laura McDonald in evidence before me described her visit on 28th January 2015.  She had been to the house before and got no answer and on this occasion again there was no answer.  She described to me in her oral evidence that as they walked away, FW walked up to them and said, “When are you going to get the message she doesn’t want to see you?”  Laura McDonald described going back and FW answering the door.  He was aggressive and started to shout, “What do you want?”  Laura McDonald said that he was very aggressive and domineering.  TP was behind him although Laura McDonald could not see TP properly.  FW shut the door in Laura McDonald’s face shouting that he would be writing to Nick Forbes and that he would be writing to The Chronicle.  Laura McDonald told me that his whole demeanour was very intimidating.
33.	Dr N reported within an adult safeguarding meeting that TP had not responded to letters and that Dr N intended to do an unannounced home visit.  However, she then discovered that TP had been registered at a different medical practice.  Dr N had been TP’s GP for 20 years and was concerned about the risks to TP if she continued to miss medical appointments.  If she missed her medication or took it inappropriately, there could be changes to TP’s epilepsy and seizure activity and Dr N informed that there would be a risk of injury, burns, or choking. 
34.	On 5th November 2015, the daughter of TP’s elderly neighbour contacted Laura McDonald to express the concerns her mother had raised with her.  Her mother had kept an eye on TP and had been friendly with her.  Now TP would walk past her in the street without talking.  FW would come round and it was reported that her mother felt he was trying to intimidate her.  He had followed her into a charity shop and was staring her down.  Her mother was intimidated and spoke to the police.  I am well aware that this account is indeed multiple hearsay and that the weight to be given to it is therefore limited and it is of limited value.  However, the matter was sufficiently intimidating and notable for the police to be informed about it.  
35.	On 11th March, Laura McDonald attended TP’s property to try to talk to her and give her advice about accessing her money.  Laura McDonald told me that TP came to the window.  They spent five minutes trying to get her to answer the door.  Evidence was given that FW came round the corner and began shouting and would not let Laura McDonald or her colleague Dorothy Zimmerman speak.  He told them to go and that TP did not want to speak to them.  Laura McDonald told me that she said to FW, “Could TP tell me that herself?”  FW was then really aggressive and shouting, “When will you give up?”  He said, “I’ll shout” and when they tried to calm him down, he said, “I’ll shout to the whole street.”  He shouted at Dorothy Zimmerman, “You ignorant woman” and repeated it several times.  TP did not open the door.  Laura McDonald said that she thought TP got a fright and shut the door. 
36.	FW in his response to the court wrote that the social workers were pestering TP and they were intimidating.  I have not heard evidence from Dorothy Zimmerman, but I find it difficult to believe, having heard Laura McDonald give evidence, that she could be intimidating in those circumstances.  Laura McDonald said FW’s aggression was more directed to Dorothy Zimmerman and that maybe was because she spoke more and maybe had a louder voice or stance and might have challenged him more.  However, she told me that Dorothy Zimmerman was under 5ft tall and there was nothing in her demeanour that was aggressive.  Laura McDonald described FW as very close to Dorothy Zimmerman leaning in towards her.  She told me he was in her personal space when shouting and Laura McDonald said she was terrified that FW would hit or bite her.  He was baring his teeth.  She told me she was quite shaken up, intimidated, and frightened and that she felt very uneasy about any future visit and was worried about TP because FW was quite annoyed when he went into the house.  She said, “I was worried about repercussions for TP.”  She went on to say in evidence:
“He was so angry.  It was quite surprising how angry he was considering we hadn’t actually said anything.”
She thought TP had phoned FW when they arrived, so he had a couple of minutes to get worked up.
37.	The police were informed of this incident and, of course, TP was present when this incident occurred.  Ian Newman, the IMCA, tried to engage with TP.  He was told by FW that he and TP had had a long discussion and that they had agreed it was not an appropriate time.  On 25th September 2015, Ian Newman compiled a report of actions and attempts to contact TP.  The report states:
“The IMCA has been unable to make any contact with TP and therefore has been unable to represent her views during any decision-making meetings.”
38.	At paragraph 198, C28 in the bundle, it is set out that:
“In conclusion, Newcastle Council adult services FW to have consistently impeded adult services in their court appointed role as financial deputy to the level which means we are unable to effectively meet TP’s financial needs.  FW has made it clear in his many letters to Newcastle City Council that TP would not accept any of her money until the Court of Protection financial deputyship is revoked and complains about every attempt to contact TP by whatever means.  We consider that TP has been subject to undue coercion from FW and KS and consider the level of control FW has over TP’s life has created a level of dependence which is detrimental to her wellbeing.  Accordingly, the local authority seeks orders.”
39.	During the course of this hearing, I have been referred to specific recordings and report forms.  It is worth looking at these forms and reporting what is recorded therein.  On 22nd August 2012, Jan Stevens and David Thackery visited TP at her home.  This is set out at C32 and 33.  I read the account more or less in full because it gives a very accurate and revealing picture of the interaction between FW and TP.  There was a joint visit with Jan Stevens to see TP as recorded by David Thackery:
“We attended the house at 8.20.  Knocked on the door several times and there was no answer.  The windows were open and it appeared that there was someone in.  I rang TP’s mobile but this was switched off.  I rang the house and TP answered.  I advised who I was and she put the phone down.   There was another attempt to ring the house, but it just rang off.  KS then came to the window and asked what we wanted.  I stated we had called to see TP and she said we could not come in or see her.  I advised that it was just to be a quick call and she said, ‘No’ and shut he blind.  We left to walk back to the car.  I noticed KS leave the house via the back lane.  She walked into the direction of FW’s house further down [FW’s address given].  As we drove past the house on return to the office, we observed FW driving up towards TP’s house.  At 9.00am, I received a phone call from FW who asked who I was.  He stated that I had rang his phone and wanted to know who I was.  Each time I spoke he continued to ask.  I stated that I was trying to contact TP and he asked why I had not made an appointment.  Before I could answer this, he stated that it was okay to visit now.  I agreed and stated that if this was convenient, Jan and I would return to the house to see TP.  He stated that ten minutes would be fine as she was not capable of speaking to us without him.
The return visit to TP’s house, the front door was open and FW was waiting.  Jan Stevens and I introduced ourselves and he let us into the house.  FW presented as domineering from the start.  When we went in, he directed us to sit in specific seats and directed TP to sit on a wooden chair.  Jan asked TP which seat she would prefer as it was her home, but he insisted that TP sit where he told her to and that we sit on the sofa.  There was another wooden seat placed directly beside the one TP was sitting on which KS sat on when she entered the room.  FW then stated that he wished to put his point across first and foremost before we could speak.  He was very intimidating whilst speaking.  He stated that he would usually record such conversations as evidence although he said he did not have his recorder with him.
He stated that he was not happy that social services had taken TP’s money and that he wished it to be reinstated.  Frequent attempts were made to try and speak, but each time FW interjected and stated he wished to finish speaking before we could speak.  He then stated he felt that social services were not acting correctly and that he had several complaints which he was pursuing.  When he finished, he said we could speak.  Jan began to ask TP how she was and FW interjected as soon as Jan started speaking to TP stating that we were treating TP like a child.  When Jan stated that this was not true, he said she had a patronising smile on her face.  I made every attempt to de-escalate FW’s aggressive verbal onslaught but KS then entered the room and started acting aggressively and accusatorily towards Jan and I.  For much of the time, both FW and KS were shouting at the same time.
Jan explained to TP that we had been having difficulty getting in touch due to her not responding to contact and FW then said that we should not be trying to contact her without an appointment.  We advised that we had several letters and made several telephone calls without response.  We tried to discuss the Court of Protection papers with TP, but each time any attempt was made to speak, either KS or FW would shout and become confrontational.  KS stood up and leaned into Jan’s face shouting that she felt that social services did not do anything to help her, had labelled her as handicapped, and stated all social workers were ‘full of shit’.  At this point, FW clapped his hands and smiled in approval at her comment adding his own comments in an aggressive and accusatory manner.  There were occasions when FW asked KS to be quiet, however, she continued to shout and intimidate.
FW was also intimidating by his constant interrupting and expressing streams of accusations about adult services in front of TP.  Jan several times asked for them to be quiet so that she could speak with TP.  FW and KS shouted that TP was signing nothing.  Jan tried to explain that it was fine for TP not to sign papers, that she did not need to sign them, and that she could object to the Court of Protection, but she was not given the opportunity due to the relentless barrage of interruptions from the parties present.  FW stated that TP was not signing any papers without taking them to a solicitor.  KS then grabbed some papers off the table and said that she would not let TP sign anything and that any papers we gave her would be shredded.  She then acted as though she was going to rip the papers in her hand.  FW spoke very domineeringly and told KS not to rip anything up.
We asked TP how she would like to get her money as benefits are now being paid to the civic centre and FW stated that he wants her to have the money put into the Halifax as he was organising an account for her, that we were stealing TP’s money, and stated we were making TP beg for her own money.  He stated that we have had her benefits but that he had her savings so we could not get them.  We asked TP how she is managing with money and she tried to answer.  Each time she spoke, FW would speak over the top of her so she remained passive throughout the visit.
FW stated that he had been TP’s friend for about 17 months and knew her and her family very well for years before.  This was followed by another stream of accusations about what he perceived as adult services’ mistreatment of TP.  He then stated that he only knew her father in passing as he would come into his shop.  He stated that now he had taken over caring for TP, that social services had done nothing for her.  He stated that he gets £200 per week off TP for supplying her with three restaurant quality meals per day, and drinks.  Jan asked him to clarify that he charged TP £200 out of the money that he controlled.  FW appeared to smirking and began another stream of statements accusing adult services of neglect.”
40.	I have referred to this visit and the recording of this visit in full as, in my view, it provides a graphic account of the relationship and involvement of FW with TP.  FW in his responses states that he has become the fulltime care of TP and provides full social care to satisfy all the needs of TP.  He sets out his view that adults social services and Newcastle City Council have financially crippled TP over the last three years and that TP is now fully financially dependent upon him due to them refusing TP to be paid direct from the DWP.  I am satisfied that adult services have tried over a lengthy period of time to provide TP with money but that she has under the influence of FW refused to accept the money thus meaning that she has relied upon FW for money in circumstances where she has her own income from the DWP and that she has had her own savings over a lengthy period of time.
41.	In assessing all the evidence and indeed paying attention to FW’s own words recorded at C33 which I have just read, he only knew TP’s father in passing and I accept the evidence of SB and MR that they did not know FW as a friend of their father.  They were unaware that FW had ever had any conversation or friendship with their mother and father, and they have questioned these claims of FW in that they had no knowledge of him before 2011.  Further, I am satisfied that TP was receiving appropriate care and assistance from adult social services.  She was able to manage independently with assistance at a relatively modest level and there was a network of people who were concerned for her wellbeing.  I accept the evidence of SB and MR that until 2012, they had a good sisterly relationship with TP and that they had assisted her in necessary decision-making.  I do not accept at all FW’s assertions about SB or MR.
42.	FW puts his case at paragraph 15 of his responses at page B40 in the bundle.  This is what he sets out:
“It is my belief that social services have conspired and influenced many parties to discredit the good work that I, FW, do in caring for TP which allows her to lead a normal life.  They claim to have a current Court of Protection order in place which is not admitted in this new application form by Mr [inaudible] and they have used such fictitious order to conspire with others and intercept TP’s money from the DWP.”
43.	I accept the evidence of SB and MR in respect of their involvement with FW.  I do not accept that MR has or has had a severe drink problem nor that she only came over to fleece money out of TP, or that the sisters together had taken money out of their father’s estate which rightly belonged to TP.  I do not accept the reasons put forward by FW for holding TP’s bank books and passport which he said was to protect TP from her sisters taking money from her.  I am satisfied that SB and MR were concerned as to their sister’s welfare and greatly saddened when their contact with her ceased.
44.	FW reiterated several times within his response document that TP did not trust anybody in a place of authority.  Until her association without FW, I find that there is no indication whatsoever that TP had any difficulties accepting help from relevant services or trusting relevant professionals.  For example, she attended to see Dr N regularly and I accept that she had a good relationship over a number of years with Dr N.  TP registered with another practice without Dr N’s knowledge and it was only when Dr N intended to make an unannounced visit that she found that TP was no longer registered with her. 
45.	I find that it was only following upon the advent of FW in TP’s life that TP seemed to have any difficulty with adult social services or with accessing medical help, or attending college.  Also from the records, it seems TP was anxious about what FW would say rather than expressing her own views.  For example, on 29th July 2014, it is recorded that she said she should not have answered the door, that she would “get wrong.”  TP confirmed that FW had told her not to accept money.  She confirmed that FW was looking after her and making sure she was safe.  FW repeats in his document several times that TP did not trust these people.  I find there is no evidence of lack of trust by TP before FW appeared on the scene.  Much of his response is directed at financial matters and much of his response contains his view that TP should have been paid directly by the Department of Work and Pensions.  There is no evidence directly that TP independently understood or was concerned about the arrangements which had been made by the local authority for her financial circumstances.  
46.	The applicant in bringing this case before the court has set out four allegations within a schedule of findings which the applicant asks the court to make.  The first allegation set out by the applicant is that:
“FW systematically isolated TP from her family, professionals, friends and neighbours by encouraging her to disengage with all services she had in place.  [The document goes on to set out that] It is the local authority’s view that P did not have the capacity to make the decisions to cancel the services and engagement that she did but that she was instructed to do so by FW.”
47.	A number of particulars are set out namely:
“Since 2011 following TP befriending FW, she began to disengage with the services that had been in place for her hitherto, namely she cancelled care calls, cancelled Community Care Alarm, declined additional support from the re-enablement team following knee replacement surgery; she declined to attend safeguarding meetings; and declined support from an advocate.  [The document goes on to outline that] FW threw TP’s sister’s belongings out of the flat and was verbally aggressive towards her.  FW was aggressive towards a friend of TP’s and taped a conversation with P.  TP cancelled planned visits by Allied Homecare.  TP stopped responding to telephone calls and was more difficult to contact.  FW indicated his intention to move TP elsewhere away from her upstairs neighbour who had hitherto been a support for TP and the BT telephone line was disconnected and as such contact with her sisters was limited.  TP stopped attending college following a meeting there with a social worker.  FW ended TP’s relationship with her GP of 17 years.”
48.	I am satisfied that until 2011, TP was accepting of appropriate services and there was no reluctance to accept such services.  However, as FW’s influence became more pronounced, the services were cancelled.  The local authority maintains that TP did not have the capacity to herself discharge the services and that she cancelled them because FW persuaded her to do so.
49.	The evidence I have heard and read satisfies me that the allegations set out by the applicant within the schedule of findings sought in respect of the first allegation are made out and I make the findings save for two, namely, that:
“FW was aggressive towards a friend of TP’s and taped her conversation with TP and FW indicated his intention to move TP elsewhere away from her upstairs neighbour who had hitherto been a support for TP.”
I am not satisfied that the evidence is such that I can make those findings, but the other evidence which I have before me I am satisfied supports the rest of the findings within that section of the schedule.
50.	TP declined to attend safeguarding meetings, she declined to speak to the social worker, she declined the support of the advocate, and I accept that this attitude was a very noticeable change from her usual demeanour and approach.  TP was not a person whom adult social services had previously had any difficulty in contacting or engaging and she did have a good quality long term relationship with Dr N which came to an abrupt end.  TP ceased to have any contact with her sisters, friends, or neighbours, all of whom had looked out for her in one way or another over the years since her parents had died.  I find that TP had become very isolated without such support and connection.
51.	The second allegation which the applicant sets out is that:
“FW has financially exploited TP and depleted the monies that she had in the bank.”
52.	FW was receiving £200 every week from TP for meals.  This was before she was living in FW’s home.  She received £211.40 in benefit.  The money which she paid to FW which she confirmed was paid to him was effectively for three meals a day and drinks and she paid it either out of income or capital, and over the time she paid a substantial amount to FW.  He had possession of her bank books and directed all her financial affairs.  Over a period of time, no other individual was able to assist TP in relation to her financial affairs.  It seems that FW incurred debt, a £700 debt in relation to parking fines which were in TP’s name despite the fact that she could not drive and that she herself did not even know that she had a provisional driving licence.
53.	I find that FW told TP not to accept or collect money from her deputy.  Mr McCormack in his submissions to the court said that this was not a classic case in relation to the financial exploitation and I agree, it is not.  Alfred was not instigating a campaign to take money from TP, but he was stopping TP having her own money.  He was stopping her having money to spend on herself.  He was stopping her receiving money from any other source.  She was therefore dependent upon FW.  Mr McCormack, in submissions, tried to explain what the applicant’s view of the situation is, namely that it was far more than wanting the money but rather that FW wants control of everything.  He does not want a financial deputy if it is not himself and I find that this assessment is correct.  I make the findings in relation to the financial exploitation as set out within the schedule.  
54.	The third matter that the applicant alleges is that:
“FW has behaved in a manner that is controlling and coercive towards TP.”
55.	Dr Hughes gave evidence before me.  She described her first visit to TP as quite extraordinary.  She described an enmeshed relationship with FW being the lead.  She told me FW dominated everything which went on and controlled the way in which TP was allowed to speak or interact.  On the second occasion, which visit was at [name of mental health service stated].  Dr Hughes said that she took the lead much more and that FW struggled with that.  She said it was a real struggle for FW to let go of the lead.  She said that FW was a dominant leader and TP followed not knowing she did so because of her mental disability and that she did not understand the relationship.  Dr Hughes told me in her experience she had never been in such a situation when a client was not allowed to express any views.  She said there were occasions when carers would jump in and assist clients, but she said that this occasion with FW and TP was outside her usual experience.  She said there was, “No space for TP to have a thinking mind of her own.”  From all the evidence that I have heard and read, I am satisfied that FW has been extremely controlling and coercive towards TP and that it had reached a stage where TP was unable to articulate or express any views of her own.
56.	The fourth allegation set out by the applicant is that:
“FW’s living arrangements for TP are inappropriate.  FW is an unrelated male who carries out intimate caring tasks for TP, such as helping her out of the bath, that there is no door to the bathroom in the home to afford TP privacy when using the toilet or the bath and to preserve her dignity in this area, and that there was no door between FW and TP’s bedrooms.”
57.	Dr Hughes described the circumstances of her visit to the home where TP was living.  She said there was no attempt for toileting to be done in a personal and private manner and that, indeed, when FW was showing around the property, TP having gone upstairs to the toilet, she was able to see TP.  She told me that TP had no privacy whatsoever within FW’s house.  Dr Hughes also described FW as denigrating TP referring to her as a “broken flywheel,” that she needed babysitting, and was “not right.”  Dr Hughes told me that to repetitively draw attention to a person’s limitations was, at best, not helpful and, at worst, psychologically damaging.  I accept Dr Hughes’s professional view.  It was obvious to me that Laura McDonald found FW’s attitude to TP distressing.  This was apparent from her evidence and also from Laura McDonald’s demeanour in court when others were giving evidence.
58.	I find that the picture that has been presented to me of TP’s life before FW was one of independence, limited by reason of her disability, but where she had visitors; neighbours who cared about her and spoke to her; community care to assist her; that she was attending college and doing well and enjoying it; that she had regular contact with her two sisters including visits from them and to them in the United States; that she had contact with friends of her sisters; and she had medical care provided by a GP who had known her for years and during the time when she resided with her parents.  All these aspects of TP’s life came to an end following upon her associating with FW.  Prior to TP removing into the care home, the only contact she had was with FW and previously KS.  I have not considered or made findings about KS.  All I determine is that TP’s relationship with KS was not beneficial to TP.
59.	I am satisfied that FW influenced TP to discontinue any previous relationships, either personal or professionals, and prevailed upon TP so that she no longer had any assistance, or support, or relationship with anyone other than himself.  She became completely reliant upon him in every regard.  He exerted complete control over her.  It was a gradual process from 2011 until 2016 but by 2016 it was complete.  I make the findings the local authority seeks in the four allegations that it puts in the schedule which has been provided to the court.
[Judgment ends]