[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

As set out above, when first raising his complaint/disclosure Mr Deveney indicated that Lisa Vescio and Paul Vincent, who had been parties to the proposed new venture were willing to give statements. This they did.

In her witness statement of the 4^th April 2006 Lisa Vescio, who is a registered mental health nurse, indicated that she had been employed on the Grange unit from March 2004 and was promoted to charge nurse and then to unit manager in June 2005. She stated that within the first couple of months of her employment there was a lack of structure and little direction on what care should be provided to the patients. Dr Barker visited infrequently. She felt that she was never guided as to what the care plan for each patient was. She was never given any definition or instruction/guidance regarding the level of treatment and care relating to individual patients’ psychological and psychiatric difficulties. She had never heard about what extra care meant and was never told how this should be delivered. She stated;

“As the unit filled up I had concerns as to the client group which is being brought into the unit. I felt these patients needed more specialist care as we were getting patients with severe mental health problems who were often unmanageable and who would have required specific care programmes. I could not deliver the care necessary for each patient as I was the only nurse on the unit with often very inexperienced support workers looking after some very difficult patients who required staffing levels way higher than what was provided.”

She stated that there was minimal intervention made in the care plans by senior clinicians, Dr Barker, Mr Breeze or Mr Wilson and she was not aware of any fee structure that informed her of what level of care was required for each patient. She was never informed that certain patients required an extra delivery of care. Her impression was that there would be a standard charge and at no stage during her employment did she think an appropriate standard of care provided to the patients was accessible mainly due to the lack of resources given for nursing care. She felt that junior staff were being exploited as they had very little training and were dealing with high risk patients. Patients and staff were put at risk due to the lack of staff.

Mr Vincent also signed a statement on 4^th April 2006. He had been employed as the financial controller at Chancellor Care Limited from 27^th July 2005 to 8^th November 2006. His direct Line Manager was Dominic Wilson. He worked out which patients should be subject to extra care charges by looking at the whiteboard in the Claimants’ office. Mark Deveney would e-mail clinical reports to Mr Breeze, Mr Wilson and him and he ensured that reports and invoices matched. Mr Breeze and Mr Wilson would hand write any changes on the clinical reports (which he knew annoyed Mr Deveney as his name was on the bottom) It was implied by both Mr. Wilson and Mr Breeze that 12 extra care charges would be levied each month in order to deal with forecasts. The extra care charge was £330 per day (this provided corroboration for Mr Deveney’s evidence about the need for 12 patients to be subject to an extra care charge). Clinically he did not know what the charge was based on and he never saw any additional resources to those that he knew were on extra care. Staffing levels were below forecast.

The statements of Lisa Vescio and Paul Vincent provided some support for the allegations made by Mark Deveney. In particular that staffing levels were inadequate even for a basic level of necessary care, no extra or additional care was ever provided, that there was a minimum requirement of 12 patients on extra care in order to meet financial forecasts and that both Mr Breeze and Mr Wilson, (neither of whom was involved in the content of care plans for individual patients) were instrumental in the levying of the charge.

I next turn to the Case Summary and MG6.