Save

Our Care Homes Meeting

Harlequin, Redhill, 29/11/2014

Chair- Paul Couchman (PC) (Secretary Save Our Services in Surrey and Surrey UNISON)
Speaker- Amanda Weston (AW) (Relative of Park Hall care home resident, and initiator of
Facebook campaign to Save Park Hall)
Minute-taker- Nicola Dodgson (Reigate & Banstead Green Party)
Around 15 local residents in attendance.

PC: Explains SOSiS as an anti-cuts campaigning organisation, supporting communities to act
to save services under threat (gives recent example of ongoing Spelthorne Fire Station
campaign)
- Last 6 care homes owned and run by Surrey County Council are under threat- most local
Park Hall and Dormers (residents are present with links to both).
- Council consultation is ongoing until 12th December- urges attendees to respond urgently,
sign existing petition, write to councillors and MPs, and take every form of possible action.
- Tells attendees 'It's your meeting', and introduces Amanda to speak first.

AW: Explains that her uncle Johnny has been at Park Hall for a number of years and,
although they had initially not wanted him to go into residential care, he is now well settled.
Calls the staff 'fantastic' with Johnny, who has special needs and challenging behaviour. On
hearing about potential closure, Amanda started the Facebook campaign page Save Park
Hall, initially with just her own friends supporting- at last count (last night) there were 1039
members.
- There are stories on the Facebook page from relatives regarding their experiences of Park
Hall care.
- Amanda thanks Paul for helping progress the campaign.
- Amanda wants all 6 care homes to be involved with the campaign, and there is a meeting
at Cobgates on Thursday 4th December, from which reports will be available on the
Facebook page.
- Highlights additional services provided by the care homes- for example, Dormers provide
cancer care, respite care, and the homes are stopping bed blocking at hospitals by providing
essential space for those that need it.
- Amanda feels the Council's suggestion 'hasn't been thought about' and although a final
decision hasn't been made, is concerned they are 'not going to do a lot of thinking' without
a very vocal campaign.

PC: Reads distressing post from Facebook page from a lady in Spain whose mother is at
Pinehurst care home, and has been told she will have to 'go home' if the homes are closed.
Requests to urgently be put in touch with a Save Pinehurst campaign.

From the floor

Claire Pooley: Emphasises that 'The Council has a duty of care'. Tells the meeting about her
brother with Downs' syndrome who she believes (although they did not know it at the time)
to have been the last person accepted into Park Hall. He previously experienced stress and

anxiety in supported living, and the other places they looked at before finding Park Hall
would clearly not have been able to provide appropriate care.
- Claire describes Park Hall as well-staffed, and providing a stimulating environment in which
her brother is well supported and 'has all the help he needs. The thought of moving him
again would be devastating.'

Anonymous resident:
- Asks if Park Hall will be used as a bail hostel if closed. (AW/PC respond they have not heard
this)
- Expresses concern at the deaths which will result from the closure of these services, and
asks if Surrey County Council could then be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter
- Regarding residents with no family of their own, who have made close bonds with other
care home residents and staff, asks if care home closure could be considered to breach
ECHR right to family life.

Helena Windsor: County Councillor for Godstone, says she is here to 'learn more' from the
'other side', as she has received many e-mails about the issue.
- Knows at least one of the homes provides care for young people which is very specialist,
and this should be taken into consideration
AW: Responds this home is Dormers which has 'made life liveable' for residents.

PC: To previous points raised, Paul explains that his own background is in adult social care,
and it is a reality that people do die from upheaval and service closures. Difficulty posed by
money required to take legal action (weighted in favour of the wealthy), and this could only
realistically be undertaken if lawyers were willing to take it on 'pro bono' as a matter of
public interest.

Anonymous resident:
- Asks why the Council have put out a questionnaire with specific, misleading questions,
rather than allow people to say what they want in response to their consultation. (Others,
including AW, echo this concern about misleading the public and limiting scope of
responses.)

Resident 1: Highlights the contradiction within consultation paper of saying the homes are
'underoccupied' when they have been closed for new admissions.

Linda Buckle: Asks where the people who would normally have gone to these homes have
been put whilst they have been closed for admissions.
PC: Into private care (funding is similar because of council's duty of care)

Frank Minal (GMB):
- Unions are looking to put together a joint response, including the impact on other services,
such as bed blocking at hospitals, and scope for refurbishment/expansion of homes.
- Refers to a London School of Economics study which revealed a possible mortality rate of
0-50% when elderly people are forced to move, and that stringent safeguards are in place
where the mortality rate is lowest. Concerned at the lack of mention by Surrey County
Council of any safeguards.


Anonymous resident: Concerned the issue is 'already decided'
AW: David Hodge seemed genuinely 'quite angry' at this suggestion at a recent meeting.

Anonymous resident: Asked if Dave Sergeant was behind the closure idea.

PC: Councillors and Council cabinet have to make the decision- cabinet's view at the
moment is a 'recommendation'.
- Emphasises that consultation is not the end as 'until they take a wrecking ball to the
homes' there is still time to act and save them.

HW: There is a County Council meeting on 9th December, so people can lobby their county
councillor to ask questions or make a statement there.

PC: Potential for SOSiS organising transport to either the Cabinet meeting or full Council
meeting (TBC) at County Hall in Kingston in February, when the decision is due to be made.
Getting a mini-bus or coach full of people from each care home to the meeting would be
unprecedented.

HW: Suggests that, at one previous committee meeting she has attended, it is possible that
the large number of people who attended (in a small space) may have affected the outcome
on a particular issue.


*The meeting agreed that mass attendance at the February meeting should be pursued as
part of the campaign*


Resident 2: Asks whether the proposed closure is because the homes need modernising and
there is no money, or whether there is another reason.
PC: Money is likely an issue, but the care homes could be made a priority. General political
direction is that public bodies no longer want to run their own services.

Linda Buckle: Emphasises that Council want people to remain in their own homes, but that
services must be in place to support this.

Resident 3: Tells meeting about her father who had Parkinson's disease and suffered a fall,
after which he had part time/day care at Park Hall for many years, and eventually moved in
there full-time when he could no longer live alone. He was very happy after moving in. The
palliative care he later received was 'nothing compared to what he received at Park Hall'.

Anonymous resident: Emphasises that the CQC has given homes good ratings.
PC: Yes, the Council are emphasising the standards of the buildings, which they claim means
the homes would now fail CQC 'Mums test'.

HW: Asks if the buildings are failing any regulations, and whether we have surveyors
reports.

PC: Council haven't given full details on refurbishment issues. Some do not have en-suite
bathrooms. Some of the homes reportedly need new/replacement lifts, which are
expensive.
Linda Buckle: It has been suggested at one site, since they do have space to expand, that
they could put the lift in a new area.

Anonymous resident: Asks, if the residents are happy, who is setting the standard which we
are being told the care homes aren't meeting.
PC: Ultimately the full Council meeting, endorsing the cabinet's recommendation.

Anonymous resident: Questions whether en-suite bathrooms are really a problem for
dementia patients.
AW: This can actually make people reluctant to ask for help, if they have an en-suite
bathroom they can feel as though they are meant to do everything themselves.
Union Rep: Some people living at home effectively find themselves confined to one room
because they don't have the help they need.
PC: It seems that what was meant to be a positive policy, trying to make sure people can
stay in their own homes where appropriate, has almost been made compulsory.
AW: Raises the issue that Council won't provide accommodation which is appropriate for
some to live at home (one reason her own relative cannot return to live with her).

Union Rep: Staff at the homes want to do something. This Saturday (6th December) is the
last one before the closure of the consultation. We will be outside County Hall (Kingston)
12noon-2pm to present counter-report to the press. Encourages anyone who is able to
attend.

Resident 4: Day centres are being closed even in private care homes. This can result in
people living at home being stuck there all day.

PC: These homes also provide emergency accommodation, for example in case of flooding.
Floods will return, and if these homes are closed, there will not be anywhere for people to
go.

PC closes meeting by encouraging everyone to respond to consultation, sign petition, e-mail
councillors, encourage others to do the same, and make as much noise as possible on this
issue.
- Mass attendance probably most appropriate at the full Council meeting in February-
everyone is encouraged to attend.