Cathy Larkin’ about

Larkin about

Larkin’ about – a.k.a Cathy Lakin

Complaints & PALS Manager or

Complaints & Cover-up Manager?


Inconsistencies to say the least!

Cathy Larkin' about 2016-03-07 001

On 13 September 2013, the GMC wrote to Lakin telling her that they were happy for her to provide all documentation relating to the patient from 9 September 2011 and that it would be better to have all the documents and then ask an expert to determine their relevance. 

Yet 18 months, later ‘Larkin’ about’ claims she supplied all the documents requested. She did not send the GMC even all related papers, much less “All documents” for the GMC’s experts to review! Moreover, she had written to the GMC on 19 September 2013:

“I have prepared a file of related documents and will send these to you in a few days.”

The GMC still awaits the file of ‘related documents’ 2.5 years later – Southern Health’s idea of a “few days” is strange. Mind you, this is the Trust that works on 12th century (pre-Magna Carta) law and thinks it can section patients who are not mentally ill – perhaps their world moves somewhat slower than the rest of us. 

Allegedly, Southern Health has answered the ICO (on one point) and there is no further action as Lakin understands it.

Lakin omits to mention all the other issues with the patient’s data, over which the Department of Health had intervened and National Audit Office would later intervene because Southern Health ignored the ICO’s advice: they ignored the DoH and NAO too.

‘Larkin’ about’ describes a letter from a patient’s private Consultant as, “Strange“, recalls one to Southern Health and one to the Council and believes there was nothing to answer.

  1. Apparently it is, “Strange” in the NHS for Consultants to support patients, who have been subjected to injustice – although that will not be a surprise to many of us!
  2. There were two letters to the Council, both copied to Southern Health.
  3. The Council responded to the first, patronised the Consultant’s professionalism and then ignored his expertise – the rest was effectively a ‘Dear John’ letter.
  4. Along with an earlier letter from the patient, his second letter trashed the conclusion of Southern Health’s so-called independent investigator. The Council’s response – effectively a, ‘Sod off’ letter.

Of course both letters required a detailed and substantive response, which neither service provider could do: there was no legitimate defence to the points he made.

Instead, Southern Health and the Council (including the Adjudicators) ignored letters from the Consultant and the patient and agreed with the legally untenable conclusions of the so-called investigator, who had no medical or legal expertise at all!

Who needs PALS like that?

And Southern Health’s Adjudicator – one Dr Lesley ‘Slippery’ Stevens, surprise, surprise!

Note to self: publish some direct email addresses soon.

1 thought on “Cathy Larkin’ about

  1. Pingback: More porkies than a pig farm! | Campaign for Reform At Southern Health

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s