I am responding to the letter addressed to Mr. Robin Lovelock from Ms. Jenny Mudge.

It is abundently clear from her letter that she has very limited understanding of the law regarding NHS funded continuing care, and even less of the implications of the 'Coughlan' judgement by the Court of Appeal. The following is the gist of my letter to the Alzheimer's Society, which establishes a prima facie case for granting at least all Alzheimer's patients 100% NHS funded care.:

"In 1997 my late father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease (which is an incurable degenerative disease, NOT a mental health problem!). He was placed in a nursing home by Dorset Social Services and told to pay for all his care. As his eldest son with enduring power of attorney I questioned this as I believed that under the Health Acts the NHS were responsible for ALL his care costs. After nearly six years of deliberate delay and endless prevarication, procrastination and sheer bloody-minded intransigance by Health Authorities and Social Services departments, the Ombudsman ruled in my favour and I have now received a full refund of all my father's care costs, together with legal costs - and compounded interest.

The Ombudsman upheld my complaint that 'the eligibility criteria were more restrictive than national guidance allowed'

It thus follows that any patient suffering from Alzheimer's or a similar disease, or requiring similar care, who has been refused 100% NHS funding, must also have been subjected to 'unlawfully restrictive eligibility criteria' in order to reach that decision. All such patients must thus automatically qualify for fully funded NHS care. In fact, HSC2001/17 (page 31 attached) confirms the law under 'Coughlan' that anybody with a health need or a disability must have ALL their care paid for by the NHS. (Which includes all so-called 'social care')

Since winning my case I have been helping many people throughout the country, and particularly in the South West, who have been refused NHS funded care, despite having a clear 'health need or disability' which is the only lawful 'eligibility criteria' needed for 100% NHS funding. If you require further information on this please click on www.nhscare.info and open 'The Steve Squires Page'. I would be pleased to advise and assist the relatives/carers of Alzheimers victims etc., who are encountering problems in obtaining 100% NHS funding and restitution for care fees previously, and unlawfully, charged by Social Services.

Sincerely. R. S. Squires. Ebsleigh Farm, Bridestowe, Devon. EX20 4QF. Tel/Fax. 01837 861225.

PS. You may also care to visit: www.groups.msn.com/Freenursingcareinformation "

Ms. Mudge also confirms that Health Authorities are basing their much-revised 'elegibility criteria' on HSC2001/015, which has been described by legal expert Derek Cole as 'Catastrophically Unlawful': Mr. Cole's analysis is here

Typical of the rubbish being frantically produced by Health Authorities everywhere in order to maintain the funding 'status quo' is that of the South West Peninsula Stretegic Health Authority. My letter to their Ms. Jo Yelland (Policy Lead, Older peoples Services) is here

In her letter to Mr. Lovelock, Ms Mudge says "At the same time, it is important to recognise that the NHS has never been responsible for the needs of everybody requiring continuing support. The judgement in the Court of Appeal case of R v. North and East Devon HealthAuthority ex parte Coughlan, confirms that local authorities may require clients to contribute to the costs of their care package, subject to ameans test."

This is totally incorrect and mis informed: The NHS are and always have been 100 % responsible for everybody who has a 'health need or disability' In 'Coughlan' the Court of appeal ruled that Social Services could only provide nursing services 'incidental and ancillary' to the provision of accommodation. Lord Woolf said "The nursing services would however, as section 21(5) requires, have to be provided in connection with the accommodation"

Section 21 of the National Assistance Act allows the local authority to 'make arrangements for providing residential accommodation for persons aged eighteen or over who by reason of age, illness, disability or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them' The Act does NOT allow the SSD to become the provider of that care, but ONLY of the 'accommodation'. Social Services departments who employ council tax revenue to fund health care which is the sole responsibility of the NHS are acting 'ultra vires' and councillors and their officers are guilty of 'misfeasance in public office, and open to surcharge by the district auditor.

Ms. Mudge's confidence in HSC2001/015 is totally misplaced, as this document is merely (unlawful) 'guidance' - not a definitive statement of the law. (See Derek Cole's analysis, here)

I hope that you will find my observations helpful. Sincerely, R. S. Squires.