We have been approached by a Care Provider who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since 1983. They tell us of their experiences, which appear to amount to inappropriate, underhanded, vexatious tactics of the CQC under the chairmanship of ex police officer Ian Trenholm.
In 2013 this Provider, who told us they have carried out successful cosmetic surgery for nearly forty years, was approached by two inspectors called Tim Weller and Sarah Moynihan. For no reason at all, they appear to have castigated this Provider – for what reason they do not know. It got so bad that the Provider took them to a tribunal and the tribunal found in favour of the Provider. These two inspectors either resigned, left or were sacked, by what is now the CQC.
In the last year the Provider, who is completely compliant in all aspects of surgery, patient pathways and governance, seems to have been vexatiously picked upon by a number of inspectors i.e. Tim Wells, Stella Franklin and others, once again under the leadership of Ian Trenholm. We note this Provider’s experience with interest in light of other negative publications about the CQC.
We have collated a number of links which will lead any party to a number of documentaries and negative reports about the CQC. One link is from Dispatches, another is from Panorama. There have been a number of negative articles which have been scathing of the CQC and its inspectors. We understand that under the Freedom of Information Act, the CQC have released details of a number of inspectors who have requested bribes in order to give good reports to some Providers.
This particular Provider, that has beaten the CQC three times in the last year, experienced tribunal dates being set and then, a few days before the tribunal was due to be heard, the CQC elected to withdraw from the hearing. That in itself being a tactic repeated multiple times seems to strongly indicate that they had no real confidence in their own case against the Provider that it could likely succeed before a Tribunal Judge.
In the last thirteen months the CQC have made this Provider’s life an absolute misery, we have been told.
We are told that the CQC requested lunch at an inspection and the Provider refused to give them lunch and directed them to a local café.
We also understand that Stella Franklin requested a meeting with the Provider’s theatre lead, CQC registered manager, Nominated Individual and director. This Provider was prepared to meet the CQC to discuss any concerns they may have had, but the CQC were asked to provide a meeting agenda and a date of the meeting in an unknown hotel in London. The CQC had all the operating dates of the Provider and gave this Provider 24 hours notice of the date of the meeting and would not provide an agenda. Clearly the Provider could not attend because it was carrying out operations on the day of the requested meeting and would not leave its patients to a basic operating theatre staff.
We can all see the shortcomings of the CQC and the services it provides to the public. Under ex-police officer Trenholm, they appear to be using police tactics to close down numerous Providers. We are seeking from the CQC, under the Freedom of Information Act, to find out how many Providers they have closed down in the past five years and why these Providers have been closed down. We are going to issue numerous press releases on these matters.
We understand that a Provider is issuing legal proceedings against Tim Wells for substantial damages and costs which are going to be personally served on him. This Provider has gone through official channels to complain about Tim Wells but the CQC inspectors appear to have closed ranks to protect him.
We are now going to be posting weekly articles on every media platform that we can find, and talking to the press and other media. What the CQC are doing, because they cannot remove registrations from some Providers who are compliant, is to issue Notices to remove the registration from these Providers. The reason they are doing that, even though they do not have any evidence, is they know that any Provider who wishes to defend itself will have to spend between £100,000 and £500,000 in legal fees.
CQC Investigations Ltd calls on Ian Trenholm, Nigel Acheson, Stella Franklin and Tim Wells to justify their behaviour and answer why there appears to be no mechanism in place to control these people, who in our opinion are carrying out abuse in a public office and malfeasance, and it appears that if they do not like a Provider, they can pretty much do what they want and try to put them out of business.
We have given our readers two links. There is a great deal more news going on the internet about the CQC. We invite any Providers that have had bad experiences with the CQC to contact us because we intend on exposing this behaviour by the CQC until the British Government do something about it. We have already collated the details of many unhappy Providers.