Indian soliciter's firm helps victim get #31000

Employee of a care home Pamela Kent claimed compensation from her employer for unfair dismissal from service.

A law firm headed by the Indian-origin solicitor Manoj Ladwa has succeeded in a landmark case to get an award for one Pamela Kent, a longstanding employee of a care home, at 2 Coverdale Road W12, for vulnerable adults with learning difficulties.

HT Image

She had claimed compensation from the Local Authority employer for unfair constructive dismissal from her employment and victimisation under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. She has been awarded over £31,000 in compensation. Ladwa says the ruling is a big boost for protection of employees who blow whistle against unscrupulous employers.

Ward, an agency worker at the same home and who later became the manager also brought proceedings on similar grounds plus further health and safety matters that settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Kent and Ward complained that the Local Authority failed to take appropriate action, within a reasonable period of time, to investigate them 'blowing the whistle' that fraudulent activity was occurring within the care home in which they worked. Although the allegations were serious, Ward and Kent provided strong supporting evidence that substantial withdrawals were being made fraudulently from the residents' bank accounts, and that residents' money was being misappropriated on numerous occasions to acquire personal items by named members of staff. In such a manner, a total in excess of £8,000 is believed to have been taken from the residents living in the care home over a period of some years, all without being questioned or noticed by the council's own management.

Kent told the tribunal that contrary to its own whistle blowing policy she was not given any update as to any investigation, and the council further continued to fail in its duty to protect the vulnerable residents from further acts of fraud by allowing the perpetrators to continue to work. It was only some five months later that two of the three individuals they identified as being responsible for the fraudulent activities were suspended, and then eventually dismissed.

The council told the tribunal that the third suspect, one Stephanie Ball, still remained as Deputy Manager, and although its barrister Susan Belgrave told the tribunal that an investigation had been carried out into Ball, the tribunal chairman PK Menon rejoined that no evidence had been presented to this effect.

Accordingly, Kent claimed that her emotional well being suffered as a result of her having to continue working for five months with the three members of staff each day, not knowing whether they had come to realise that she had made these complaints, whilst continuing to witness further exploitation of residents finances. She became fearful of reprisals and, although two suspects were eventually suspended, Ball remained in post and her working life became unbearable not knowing what was happening or could happen. The effect was cumulative, the tribunal was told, so that her health suffered to the extent she took six weeks sick leave, and then she was forced to resign.

The tribunal found that the council failed to carry out a timely investigation, failed to keep Kent informed, failed to address her real concerns about residents being subjected to further abuse from June to November 2002, failed to address her very real concerns of intimidation, failed to address her concerns about the role of Ball and her fear of having to work with Ball, and failed to provide her with any evidence of an investigation into Ball's role. In fact, she was only informed of the eventual action taken after she had issued proceedings against the Local Authority.

In addition, Kent also maintained that, after leaving, she made four requests to work on a casual basis. Again her requests were ignored until proceedings were commenced in the tribunal, despite the huge staff shortages that are manifest within the Borough. Although it was claimed that her requests were overlooked due to "an administrative oversight" Kent believed it was because she has been branded a troublemaker. The tribunal found in favour of Kent and rejected the council's explanation as "wholly unsatisfactory".

In fact, Kent said she had done nothing but act wholly appropriately and in the best interests of the vulnerable residents whom she, and the others in the care home, were entrusted to look after. It is noteworthy that she has never received any word of thanks from the council for making these allegations known to them or for her obvious concern shown toward the residents.

Responding to the Employment Tribunal's query in June regarding repayment of the money to the residents, the council confirmed that the misappropriated money had not been repaid, notwithstanding the fact that a period of two years had passed. Since the proceedings and following initial press reports before this decision arrived, one of the relatives informed Ward that fraudulent withdrawals from building society accounts were now being repaid although there was no mention of repayment of any money that was fraudulently spent from the residents own cash on goods for staff. It is, therefore, believed that large amounts of money may still be owed to residents. This situation is increasingly shocking in that the Commission for Social Care, the government body that was set up to regulate care homes, does not appear to have acted on this in spite of Ward writing repeatedly with her request for them to ensure a full repayment of money taken. Neither is it clear if the police have ever been notified, even though one Kim Pepper admitted to the allegations of fraud against her.

The council also intimidated Kent in response to initial press reports, based entirely on statements given in evidence at the Tribunal, by threatening to sue her for libel and by defending the allegations against them in a letter to one of the papers concerned. However, the tribunal has in its decision identified numerous failings on the part of the Local Authority.

Ward said: "I hope the council will now review its procedures and treat whistle blowers with more care and respect in future. I sincerely hope that the press can assist in ensuring a full reimbursement to those who have lost money, as official channels have seemingly failed to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our community."

Kent said: "I am so pleased that, finally, this has come out into the open. My main hope is that the residents will now be fully reimbursed for all the money that they have lost on account of the Local Authority's failure to protect the residents in their care. Compensation to me will then simply be a bonus."

Manoj Ladwa, the solicitor acting for Kent added: "The law on protecting employees who blow the whistle on unscrupulous employers has been given a big boost by this decision. I believe that more employees who witness malpractice in the work place will now have the confidence to speak up. Equally, employers will need to be more vigilant and proactive in ensuring that they stay within the law and ensure good practice."