Derek J.Cole, M.A. (Law), LL.B. (Cantab), 9 Anglesea Terrace, St Leonards on Sea. 25th Feb, 2005

My claimant asked under the freedom of information act for Documents relating to the dispute between Buckinghamshire C.C.with a view to arguing an 'estoppel' if he was sued for payment of his father's Nursing Home Fees.

The documents were so astonishing that I have written a lengthy report on the whole situation in the TVSHA area.

Summary PART ONE

The Deccption. Evidence that my claimant was falsely told, with the intention of putting in jeopardy all his father's assets, that there was no dispute. The estoppel is absolute.

The non-agreement. A scrutiny of the 'agreement' eventually signed to remedy this shows it was no agreement at all.

The forgery. As the criteria issued for 1st Feb, 2003 stated they were issued in partnership with Social Services when in fact that was untrue the document is at law a criminal forgery designed unlawfully to deprive the old, the sick and the disabled of all their assets.

The Dubious First of June. Evidence that statements to my claimant, made with the intention of putting in jeopardy all his father's assets, that the criteria had not been amended on 1st June, 2004 were untrue.

Coughlan says the exact opposite. Evidence that TVSHA are persuading the old, the sick and the disabled to pay out all their assets on the ground that the law is certain, whereas internal documents show they have no idea if they are acting lawfully or not. Evidence that a test of reasonableness had been applied whereas Lord Woolf in Coughlan specifically says it was the wrong test.

Hurdles for Pam Coughlan to clear.Although they admit that the only existing lawful measuring-stick is Pam Coughlan, they decided not to apply the Coughlan Test, concealing the fact that they have on file from January, 2003 a result of the Coughlan Test which shows that under their Toolkit she would not remotely qualify, although the Court of appeal said that refusing her free care went 'far beyond' what the law permitted.

Conclusion so far. At best the TVSHA are 'ex turpe causa' and 'estopped' from denying my claimant, Mr C senior, free care. There may also be matters for the Police.


Panel Beating.Total chaos in the work of Continuing Care Panels, supporting evidence already circulated to the Select Committee.

Improper Finance Considerations Finance officers unlawfully attended Continuing Care Panels. TVSHA and Social Services negotiated on the unlawful basis of what percentage each party should pay, not on the law as laid down by Coughlan

Elected Councillors excluded?Are standing orders being observed in giving social services consent? Is the exclusion of elected councilors such as cabinet members from the negotiations lawful?

Be you never so high the law is above you. Lord Denning Details of how my various claimants intend to refuse to pay in order to bring the issue back to the Court of Appeal.


Social Services, but not the PCT, can seek to make a financial assessment on the patient. If the patient/family assert that the patient has 'needs …. which are primarily health needs' they can (and now do) refuse and ask for it to be taken to Court. The Court will apply 'Coughlan' , not the criteria