Use your browser back button to return if you use any of the links.
Those who are visiting here for the first time, may wish to read the background pages about my 'unsettling incident' - here. Then read my diary entries since the incident to get a feel of the trauma that I have suffered see here.
Right .. so let's get on with it!
In her letter enclosing the statement that she wishes me to sign, Mrs Gladwin, middle manager, tries to get me to say that Eileen, my warden, came into my flat with her passkey. I think that this is the item on which she 'was out to get' Eileen. In her version of my statement, she mentions that other tenants have complained about Eileen's 'inappropriate relations with tenants'.
She put in her version of my statement, "Eileen did not visit me the following day, but on the 17th June 2004 she came to my home with a message from Scotland and let herself into my property with her master key."
At no time during recorded interviews, (her colleague, Mrs Peng took copious notes), or in letters did I make this accusation. Why did she put it in? (To get at Eileen?)
It may be that when BDC senior managers looked at my 'hybrid' statement they thought that I was planning to bring a compensation claim. (Not interested - got too much money anyway!) If they found Eileen guilty of abusing, humiliating & abandoning me, then that would seal my case. Therefore, they decided to judge against my statement of unprofessional conduct, but judge in favour the of minor misdemeanours that I had mentioned.
I believe, (allege), that Mrs Gladwin deceived her senior managers by surreptitiously changing and falsifying my statement, and presenting an 'edited version' to them. Should I 'shop her' and bring this to their notice? No! I have decided to make 'alternative arrangements'.
After reading all of this page you may wish to see the original statements here :-
Here is my final letter to Mrs Sylvia Gladwin, Area Housing Manager (Acting). She did try to get me to sign a statement that minimised Mrs Eileen Holland's (my warden) abuse, humiliation & abandonment of me, and maximised Eileen's unprofessional conduct, (that has little to do with me!), This was so that she could 'have a go at getting Eileen'. As Eileen told me, "A manager is out to get me". All on this page proves that she was correct!
Dear Mrs Gladwin,
Thank you for your letter of 9/9/04, with enclosures.
First, I must apologise unconditionally for the discourteous manner in which I spoke to you during our phone call of 2/9/04. You have always treated me courteously and professionally.
When you explained, during the call, that you were doing a summary of my lengthy notes, and our meetings, I decided to do the same. The enclosed statement is a 'hybrid' of the two.
In your summary, you said that Eileen entered my home with her passkey when she delivered the message from Scotland. This was not so. There must have been a misunderstanding. (I did say that she knocked with a 'bailiffs' knock) Nevertheless, Eileen has on several (5-7) occasions done this. When I have made a wry joke about catching me undressed, she joked by saying something like, "Don't worry, I have seen everything in my time!"
By coincidence, in speaking to two other tenants last week, they both complained that Eileen had entered their flats in that manner without cause. As I was pursuing these complaints, I asked if they would speak to you. They refused. People are reluctant to criticise a person whom they see as having authority over them.
You may use this letter as part of your investigation.
I mention that I have a fifty-five minute video. Let me know if you wish to have a copy.
As I have said, "It's so sad that windows of opportunity were missed."
You will note that although I tell Mrs Gladwin that I have prepared a statement, she does not come back to me and ask to see it.
I now give to you the letter from Mrs Gladwin letting me know the result of the investigation(s) of the 'unsettling incident' that happened to me.
It does not take the proverbial Rocket Scientist to infer that she has unilaterally and personally dismissed Eileen's abuse, humiliation & abandonment of me, but sent Eileen before a disciplinary hearing regarding the 'general observations' that I made concerning Eileen's unprofessional conduct, that has little to do with me. Or else, even worse, falsified my statement and presented it to the senior managers.
Dear Mr. Aylward,
Further to my previous correspondence and discussions regarding your complaint of the conduct of your Scheme Co-ordinator, Eileen Holland, I write to advise youthat I have now reached a conclusion to my investigations.
The allegations made regarding misconduct and abuse towards yourself are unfounded. Whilst Eileen did not visit you on the 15th June, (following the incident in the garden), she did call you the following day and every subsequent day, until your request for this to stop. Therefore she continued her duties towards you.
The other issues you raised have alsobeen investigated. Senior Managers have met with Eileen and these matters have now been dealt with under our own Personal procedures.
I trust this matter has been concluded to your satisfaction.
Area Housing Manager
I now give to you my statement, which reflects the 'complaint' I made about Eileen's abuse, humiliation & abandonment of me. This is compared with the one that Mrs Gladwin tried to get me sign so that she could 'get at' Eileen and highlight her unprofessional conduct (which had little to do with me.)
My statement is in blue.Mrs Gladwin's statement is in red.
She has used (abused) the detailed statements that I made that filled 24 pages. However, when I made the statement for use at Eileen's disciplinary hearing, I minimised my 'general observations'. Gladwin seized upon this and used it to 'get her own back' on Eileen by maximising, and highlighting them!
Mrs Gladwin set out to use me to get at Eileen. She succeeded, but not at my expense!
Thus, she achieved my primary objective, "Cause as much trouble for Eileen, because she abused, humiliated and abandoned me, then lied to me & gave false evidence against me." From the beginning I saw that I was on a loser, trying to get Eileen disciplined by Mrs Gladwin. Therefore, I had to use the naiveté of Mrs Gladwin to achieve justice.
"More that one way to skin a donkey, eh?"
Eileen told me, "A manager is out get me." She now knows how it was done!
The first letter above, I wrote to persuade Mrs Gladwin to sympathise with me, but she must have decided that it was not in her interests.
"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
I now go on to analyse the 'hybrid' statement.
This is regarding my personal complaint of abuse, humiliation & abandonment by Eileen. I use 901 words - then Mrs Gladwin reduces it to 195 words!
What I said - 901 words.
That on the morning of Tuesday15th June 2004, Mrs Holland conducted herself in a manner contrary to that required of her by her position as co-ordinator of an Aged Person Scheme. Her actions were contrary to the conditions contained in her job description, and her statutory duty of care to her tenants, in that :-
1. She humiliated, intimidated and subjected me to verbal abuse, and placed me in a condition of fear, and alarm.
In my written statement I said :-
Eileen and Joan were sitting at the garden table. As I passed, I said, "Morning, ladies!" As there was no reply, I said it again. Eileen turned round, and said, "I am not talking to you." This was obviously no joke. I was shocked, and felt threatened. I stumbled to find a face saving comment. I said something inane referring to Margaret's, of number 29, close association with Joan. I waved and moved on. Joan shouted, as I walked away, "He's gone mad." And, Eileen replied, "Yes!"
2. Mrs Holland abandoned me by not visiting me after the incident. She did not visit me on that day. The next day she was on a course but could have spoken to me in the evening. She did not speak to me on the Thursday. She did not speak to me about the incident, until ten days later when she told me that she knew that I had been upset on that Tuesday. She continued by saying that she did not visit me because I was "too upset". She also said that she would not visit me in my home, but that I had to attend her office. Also, she said that she would not discuss the Tuesday morning incident with me. (This conversation was recorded)
Knowing that I was very upset (in her words "too upset") she neither acted, nor sought advice.
Her unreasonable decisions placed me in stress, and emotionally traumatised.
My Support Plan, signed by Mrs Holland, highlights that I have,
"Type II diabetes. Heart problem. Blocked blood vessels in the neck."
I suffered mentally & physically from her abuse & abandonment, and saw my GP a week later due to throbbing in my neck due to the trauma and stress. The GP referred me to the specialist in cardio-vascular surgery at Southend Hospital. I needed to take heart and sleeping medication after the incident.
I also had to have psychotherapeutic counselling.
Supporting written logs, audio recordings (copy with Mrs Gladwin), & a fifty-minute video recording (covering five days observations), are available which show that Mrs Eileen Holland has an inappropriate and close relationship with Mrs Joan Higgins.
2. Mrs Holland has an inappropriate relationship with Mrs Joan Higgins.
Mrs Holland discussed me with Mrs Higgins as a 'problem'. That discussion was not conducted in a professional, unbiased and non-partisan manner. She solidly, and solely, identified with Mrs Higgins, and had no concern for me, and indeed 'bawled me out' in front of her. She did not remonstrate with her regarding her comment that I was mad. That was inappropriate behaviour. She should have listened to Mrs Higgin's complaint, and then sought out my story. She said that she heard Mrs Higgins say that I was mad, but she denied agreeing with her. However, she did nothing for me to ameliorate the insult. Her relationship with Mrs Higgins on that Tuesday morning was inappropriate, and prejudicial to my interests.
She said that I was the 'problem' why she was speaking to Mrs Higgins. She did not advise me what that 'problem' was.
My further complaints are :-
3. Mrs Holland obeyed an instruction from her manager that was in contravention of the terms of her job description, and her statutory duty of care to the tenants of ******** Court.
Mrs Joyce Copplestone instructed Mrs Holland not to attend to me in my home, but in her office, and she obeyed that instruction. That was in breach of Basildon District Council's duty of care to me. She should have refused to obey that order and sought advice from a senior manager.
4. On various occasions, Mrs Holland has breached her duty of confidentiality. In that, she disclosed tenants' personal details to other tenants. My statement said: -
"About three weeks previously, I had confided in her mother, Lillian Ford at number 15, that I had been present when Eileen had disclosed personal information about a neighbour I know as Barney Issacs, who lives at number 23, and is a reclusive man. This was in the presence of Joan of number 22. This indiscretion was a few minutes after I had asked her about Barney, and she had replied, "Oh, no. I can't do that, it's confidential." Another tenant was there, but I can't recall who. I will not record the details of her indiscretion here, as this will just compound the indiscretion.
About a week later, I was again, being taken aback a bit. I told Lil that a similar incident had occurred concerning Barbara at number 36. My main concern was that Eileen was placing herself in a compromising position with a noted 'bully', Joan of number 22, who runs the social club, and could pose a threat to Eileen. Joan had many times expressed her negative opinions of Eileen to me."
I have provided written details of these two indiscretions.
How Mrs Gladwin reduced my statement from 901 words to her statement of 195 words
I saw Eileen talking to a resident, Joan Huggins in the garden on the 15th June and wished her good morning. She did not reply, therefore I repeated this remark. At this point she gave me a withering stare and said, 'I am not going to talk to you again'. The resident, Joan then shouted at me that 'I was mad' and Eileen agreed with her.
I was shocked by this comment from a person who is charged with my comfort and well being. I have a heart condition that Eileen is well aware of and this caused me great distress and illness. I waited until the evening for Eileen to contact me and explain her outburst. She did not contact me, therefore I wrote a note to ask her to advise me in writing, of the matters that caused her to make those disturbing comments. This note was delivered to Eileen's house at approximately 5.00 pm on the 15th June.
Eileen did not visit me the following day, but on the 17th June 2004 she came to my home with a message from Scotland and let herself into my property with her master key.
For my general 'observations' I use 50 words, Mrs Gladwin expands it to 673 words to hammer Eileen!
What I said - 50 words
5. Mrs Holland allowed unauthorised people to occupy the guestroom, and co-ordinator's office. In one case tenants were put at risk of theft and in another of fire. The occupation of the office, by two adults & two teenagers, (her relations) for a lengthy period, caused concern to the tenants.
How Mrs Gladwin increased my statement from my 50 words to her statement of 673 words
I feel that Eileen is unprofessional because at various times she has confided in me about other tenant's problems. I have been present when Eileen has disclosed personal information about a neighbour who lives at No.23 ***** Court. This was in the presence of Joan Huggins of No.21 ****** Court. This is not the only occasion that this has happened. On another occasion Eileen told me that she believed that Joan was such a bully because her mother was a dominating person and belittled Joan when she was young. Eileen should not have mused over Joan's psychological problems with me (how would I feel if it had been me?). Eileen also told me that Joan had hunted out her neighbour at No.20, Margaret. She said, Joan terrorised her. She was jealous of Margaret's garden and decorating. It was inappropriate for this information to be given to me.
Eileen also told me that she had been spoken to by her superiors regarding her co-ordinator/tenant relationships. This had come about because of a survey that had been conducted on ****** Court where one tenant criticised Eileen's relationships with tenants. The Union representative was called in and the survey was abandoned. She said to me that otherwise it could have been serious for her, as one of the manager's was 'out to get me'. I gave my opinion of conducting an attitude survey using aged people and it seemed to give Eileen some comfort. Nevertheless, this is just another example of Eileen discussing confidential council matters with a tenant.
We have had three incidents of arson. Eileen told others and me, that the police were not looking for anybody, as they knew who had carried out the arson. This person was a tenant, who Eileen named. She also said that the police had told her that the person had also carried out acts of arson at a previous tenancy. Should she have given this information to us?
INCIDENTS INVOLVING USE OF THE GUEST FLAT
Eileen befriended a homeless youth. She gave him a meal in her own home then allowed him to lodge in the guest flat for about six weeks. This could be seen as laudable. However, this is an aged person scheme and some, including myself were concerned. She should have boarded him in her own home.
The guest room was also used by the son of a tenant for lodgings when he was homeless after a marital dispute. He was employed with a good income and could wll have afforded accommodation. He used the room for about three or four months. A hazard was caused when he ran an electric cable from his mother's flat to the guest room through the windows. There were no electric points in the guest flat.
What were the safety hazards in running a basic electric cable to the guest room?
INCIDENTS INVOLVING EILEEN'S FAMILY
Eileen allowed her sister's family, (two adults and two teenagers) to be housed in her office at No.22 ****** Court for approximately three months when they were evicted from their home. The common room is used as an 'overspill' for Eileen's family on visits. Children have been allowed to sleep there.
REMOVAL OF A KITCHEN
A couple moved into No.9 ******* Court and fitted a high quality kitchen. When they died, Eileen had the fitted kitchen removed and installed into her own home. The one in her home was put into No.9.
Eileen says that all these events were authorised by her 'manager'. Did the manager have the relevant authority?
Finally, when Eileen moved to ******* Court, Joan, a tenant of the Wickford complex followed her. Eileen nursed her every day, and blamed her back problems on lifting Joan in and out of bed. Eileen has had a lot of sick leave due to this. She has expressed the intention of retiring on health grounds because of her back problem. In your sheltered housing handbook, it clearly states that Scheme Co-ordinators are not authorised to provide any nursing, medical or personal care.
If you believe that I have been treated unfairly, then write to :- Mr John Robb, Chief Executive,