Dear Mr Pilling

Please find  2 letters enclosed

Title: In the High Court, 25th January, 2005
Title: D. R. Poole, 11th January, 2000

I give you full permission to use the letters as you wish and to place them on your Website for other to view & judge.

I am Mr G. Baverstock.
My e-mail address: [email protected]
My Telephone Number is: 01262 609235 
My Mobile is: 07719386130
I live at: 16, Kent Sqaure, West Hill, Bridlington

My next door neighbour now deceased since March 2000 was a gentleman called Mr Law.

In the High Court Document 24th January, 2005  it is claimed by East Riding Council; I had someone else's care plan and East Riding claimed through its legal team; I also resided with another person; NOT TRUE! 

Records will show; I have lived by myself at 16, Kent  Square, Bridlington since 13th July. 1997 and further if you look at the letter to D. R. Poole 11th January, 2000 signed by Tony Hunter, Director of Social Services that I had my own care and more or less 24 hour care I am at a loss to understand the outright lie told by the East Riding Council  to the High Court that I had someone else's care package when it is clear I did not; any person who reads both letters will see I had my own care package.

For Reference, Mr Law a friend of mine left next door to me sometime in August 1999 at the latest to go into residential care whereby he passed away in March 2000.  How did I have his care when he had already left, (see Mr Tony Hunters letter  dated 11th January, 2000}. I claim East Riding Council lied to defraud me of my care by utter deception and they attempted to lie in court. The letter of January, 24th 2005 was a total lie so the council could cheat me of my care.

Its time East Riding Council Councillor's investigated being misled by officers of its own council who lied and its time society investigated the false representations as well.

As a result, a disabled man is left to lie in his own excrement as a result of losing his care. Further more the Council staff have never looked after me in the last 7 Years;  How do they know what goes on in my home; they haven't a clue !!

Finally; I have been stitched up and I am to suffer for the rest of my days because of officers of the East Riding Council telling dispicable lies against me, they also told Councillors, I was not sexually abused when I was and got compensated £16,500 for the sexual abused suffered.

The Council do not like me because; I stand up for justice against staff in their council who use deception to get their own way.

I have assisgned my name to this document - GBaverstock 

I ask all those who support justice to support my cause; this could also pave the way for others in the same situation  Thank you If you can help or support me in any way; so I can get Justice;

I would be very grateful if all Donations & letters of support can be sent to: Mr G. Baverstock 16, Kent Square, West Hill Bridlington YO16 4RS

Thank you once again for your continued support

Original story - Please read

This is the letter entitled "In the High Court"

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

B E T W E EN:

THE QUEEN

On the application of

GRAHAM BAVERSTOCK

-and- 

THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNCIL 

OUTLINE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

Listed for hearing: 25 January 2005

Time estimate: ½ hour

Essential reading: Defendant's summary grounds, Care plans [Vol 3, section 2], order of Bennett J 24.5.04 [Vol 3, section 1, p5]

Counsel apologises for the late delivery of this skeleton: the matter was transferred to her on the morning of 23 January 2005.

1. The defendant submits that the application for permission should be refused. If it is granted, the defendant asks that the Court lay down a timetable for the final resolution of this long-standing disupte.
   
2. The submissions contained in the summary grounds are adopted. These outline submissions focus on the position following the consent order of Bennett J dated 24.5.04 [Vol 3, section 1, p5]. Essentially, after the order the defendant reviewed its assessment and care plan with the assistance of access to the claimant's medical records [Vol 3, section 2]. The defendant declined to attend the care planning meeting. A new care plan was issued. The claimant set out his objections in his amended details of facts and grounds [Vol 3, section 1].
   
3. The defendant submits that it has reached its decision as to the claimant's care needs and the services he requires carefully and lawfully. It has consulted with the relevant individuals as far as it is able, and has taken their views into account. Ultimately, however, decisions as to need, and what service to provide, are for the local authority alone. It must make these decisions in the light of its own staff's knowledge and experience as well as in the light of the reports of its colleagues in the health service. A local authority is not obliged to accept the opinion of every individual who is asked to contribute to the needs assessment and care planning process: it must exercise its own discretion in fulfilling its statutory functions. It is submitted that the objections to the needs assessment and care plan made on behalf of the claimant, while closely-argued, are essentially matters of fact and interpretation which do not amount to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
   
4. This type of difference over fact and opinion is not well-suited to resolution by way of judicial review. The Court of Appeal has on more than one occasion indicated that such matters are best determined by way of a complaints procedure ( R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council [2002] 1 WLR 803 echoed in R (Anufrijeva) and LB Southwark [2004] 2 WLR 603 at paragraph 81). That option has been offered to the claimant [Vol 3, section 5, p66], but he has rejected it and prefers to continue with these proceedings. The Court may wish to consider the propriety of prolonging this mode of dispute resolution.
   
5. It is true to say that the defendant's re-assessment of the claimant has resulted in a significant reduction in the care provided to him. However, this change should not distract from the correct statutory question, which is: what does this individual need now? There is nothing inherently unreasonable in a reduction in care provision. Further, in this case there is a good explanation for the historically higher level of provision which does not relate to the claimant's community care needs. It arose because the 24 hour care was established when the claimant resided with another individual who did require this level of care. When that individual was gone, the defendant continued the care without re-assessment of the claimant. The defendant concedes that this was an error but points out that it followed this path because its staff found the claimant a difficult person with whom to deal. The fact of a previously higher level of care does not make the current proposals unlawful, when they, rather than the old provision, have been based on a proper assessment and care planning process.
   
6. It should be born in mind that needs assessment and care planning is a continuous process. Just as the defendant has found as a result of the review of the claimant's case that a reduction in services appears appropriate, it will continue to review the claimant in the light of the changes in care provision to him. The new care plan is not written in stone. If the claimant submits and/or the defendant believes that a further change, and in particular an increase is required, then that need will re-assessed and a new plan, if appropriate, drawn up. The defendant is open to the possibility that the implementation of the proposed care plan will demonstrate the need for an increase.
   
7. Turning to the factual issues in this case raised by the claimant, the defendant submits as follows. The claimant submits that he needs night care in order to manage his continence [Vol 3, section 1, p9ff]. The defendant submits:

• there is no evidence of sufficiently frequent diarrhoea, even on the claimant's account, to justify 24 hour care
• there is not sufficient evidence of the claimant's inability to utilise other methods of managing his urinary incontinence to justify 24 hour care; it is not understood why the claimant will not contemplate the alternatives suggested, such as bladder retraining
• as to the strength in the claimant's hands and arms, relevant to his use of a catheter and jug, it is pointed out by the defendant that he drives a car and uses a computer, which indicates that he has the strength required.
  

The claimant further submits that he has difficulties arising out of the ill-health of the person he has chosen to provide his care under the Direct Payments Scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to enable individuals to choose their own carer by employing the carer themselves. If the carer the claimant has chosen can no longer provide care, then he is able to choose another one. The defendant would provide the claimant with a list of agencies who could assist. Similarly there is provision in the sums paid under the Direct Payments Scheme to enable the claimant to obtain emergency temporary cover, and the claimant has only to approach an agency to establish such provision for himself.

FENELLA MORRIS

Counsel for the defendant

This is the second letter entitled "D. R. Poole" Click to read