Amit Patel’s Freedom of Information request to the CHRE.

April 5, 2011
By

SnoutsInTheTroughJust noticed this on the “comments” and it deserves a more prominent place. Many chiropractors think Coats demise will ring in a new dawn for chiropractic in the UK. The fact is Coats operated the way she did, because she thought it was good for the Chiropractic profession, Richard Rummary tried to point out in 2000 that it was not. Unfortunately since then other chiropractors have encouraged her and  many looked the other way while politicians, privy councillors , and the CHRE allowed her to get on with it.

Having sent in many FOIs over the years, if the FOI questions are not precise they organisation can wiggle out of providing an answer.  This is the gist of the CHRE response to Amits request.

“I appreciate that you will find the above response to your various requests disappointing.You are welcome to re-consider your request and make a more precise application seeking those documents you feel the CHRE are, or might be in possession of, rather then seeking the answers to questions that are not covered by the FOIA or information that is held by other organisations”.

When you want to say to them is, I dont want this information,  I want to know why you are not doing anything about the information you have. Having this information brings pressure to bear on these arseholes to act, thats all. Registrants should not have to do the work of GCC council members for them. Thats what statutory self regulation means, these chiropractors on council keep rogue elements in check and if the fail the CHRE, points it out and if they dont the Privy Council steps in.

The CHRE have recently given the GCC a glowing report for the way they have regulated the profession in 2010 and handled the mass complaint. I suspect the GCC are too embarrassed to publish it .

 

Amit Patels Freedom of Information request sent on 27th Feb 2011

Dear Emma
Please answer the following freedom of information questions and e mail your response
1. What actions should be taken by a regulator upon being notified that a staff member or former staff member has solicited a bribe?
2. What actions should be taken by a regulator when it becomes apparent that cases have been dismissed or withheld from the investigating committee by the former staff member?
3. What is the role of the council of the general chiropractic council upon receipt of bribery allegations? Should they be informed?
4. What powers does the CHRE have to follow up on cases that have been dealt with outside of the investigating committee rules?
5. How many complaints has the CHRE received about the GCC where the nature of the complaint included improper dismissal, bribery or misfeasance?
6. What did the CHRE do to follow up on the case of John Savidies who died, his family and partner have repeatedly complained about the case being dismissed by bribery, why was this case not reopened? Particularly when the same dubious ex employee was implicated in every case?
7. Are repeated complaints about bribery allegations common in the professions which the CHRE reports on?
8. Who if anyone should the registrar inform about repeated bribery allegations made about a former employee who was sacked, reported to the police and who the Registrar had every reason to believe was a rogue employee with a history of dubious behaviour?
I look forward to hearing from you
Amit Patel

REPLY::
28th March 2011

Dear Dr Patel,
Your Freedom of Information Act request
Thank you for your email of 27th February 2011 in which you made eight information
requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
We are committed to the principles of transparency and public accountability. We are fully
supportive of the right of the individual to ask for information and consider that it is a
fundamental duty of an organisation to consider and comply, where possible, with such
requests. We make details of the requests we receive and the information we disclose
available on our website to allow wide access to the information.
The FOIA was enacted to promote openness from those in the public sector through
allowing access to recorded information, subject to certain exemptions. However, many of
your requests are not for recorded information and therefore do not amount to requests
under FOIA. We are only able to respond to those requests which fall under FOIA.
Our response to each of your requests is set out below.

1. What actions should be taken by a regulator upon being notified that a staff member
or former staff member has solicited a bribe?
This request does not seek access to recorded information and is therefore not a request
under FOIA.
2. What actions should be taken by a regulator when it becomes apparent that cases
have been dismissed or withheld from the investigating committee by the former staff
member?
This request does not seek access to recorded information and is therefore not a request
under FOIA.
2What is the role of the council of the general chiropractic council upon receipt of bribery
allegations? Should they be informed?
This request does not seek access to recorded information and is therefore not a request
under FOIA.
4. What powers does the CHRE have to follow up on cases that have been dealt with
outside of the investigating committee rules?
Details of the powers that we have in relation to cases closed at the early stages of the
fitness to practise process can be found here:
http://www.chre.org.uk/oversee… and details of our powers in relation to
final fitness to practise decisions can be found here:
http://www.chre.org.uk/oversee…
5. How many complaints has the CHRE received about the GCC where the nature of the
complaint included improper dismissal, bribery or misfeasance?
CHRE has received 12 complaints about improper dismissal of cases, bribery and/or
misfeasance.
6. What did the CHRE do to follow up on the case of John Savidies who died, his family
and partner have repeatedly complained about the case being dismissed by bribery, why
was this case not reopened? Particularly when the same dubious ex employee was
implicated in every case?
This request does not seek access to recorded information and is therefore not a request
under FOIA. However, it may be helpful if we explain that CHRE has no legal powers to
reopen cases closed by the regulators’ investigating committees or at any other stage of
the fitness to practise process. We only have powers to appeal to the High Court any
decisions made by final fitness to practise panels which we consider are unduly lenient
and do not protect the public.
7. Are repeated complaints about bribery allegations common in the professions which
the CHRE reports on?
This request should be directed to each of the regulatory bodies. We are unable to inform
you if bribery allegations are common in complaints received by the regulatory bodies as
we do not hold this information.
8. Who if anyone should the Registrar inform about repeated bribery allegations made
about a former employee who was sacked, reported to the police and who the Registrar
had every reason to believe was a rogue employee with a history of dubious behaviour?
This request does not seek access to recorded information and is therefore not a request
under FOIA.

I appreciate that you will find the above response to your various requests disappointing.
You are welcome to re-consider your request and make a more precise application
seeking those documents you feel the CHRE are, or might be in possession of, rather
then seeking the answers to questions that are not covered by the FOIA or information
that is held by other organisations.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an
internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the
date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to:
Harry.Cayton@chre.org.uk or Harry Cayton, Chief Executive, 157-197 Buckingham
Palace Road, London, SW1W 9SP.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner
can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Share Button

Related posts:

  1. The Department of Health will no longer fund the CHRE
  2. The CHRE does not have the authority or the will to investigate the General Chiropractic Council
  3. The General Chiropractic Council needs your registration fees to survive and will not put up fees for fear many chiropractors will come off the register
  4. CHRE has told General Chiropractic Council to sort this mess out. GCC chair Peter Dixon failed to tell them he does not have the credibility to do it.
  5. Got an urgent e-mail from Harry Cayton OBE; the Chief Executive of Council for Health Care Regulatory Excellence (CHRE)
  6. The complaint against Peter Dixon was not sent to the PCC and he was able to remain as chair of the General Chiropractic Council
  7. Despite what BCA president says Margaret Coats is going nowhere
  8. Did BCA finally find its spine and tell the General Chiropractic Council, its not fit for purpose?
  9. Former General Chiropractic Council member, Dana Greens letter to new council members in December 2007. “GCC is not fit for purpose”
  10. Should Graham Donald chair Investigating Committee meetings?

Tags: , ,

  • Amit Patel

    Rod, are you talking about the committee (protect the public) sitting trash??

    I was telling my uncle who is a Judge about all the shenanigan of Coats, Dixon et al, and he was speechless… (he is never speechless!) … I have given him the address of this website….

    Only 9 days left until I see the MP…..

    Hello uncls (if your reading this :) )))

  • rodmacmillan

    Funny, when you lift a rock and look at the creatures scurrying away from sunlight

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: