This article is based on a judgement reported and made public by HHJ Hilder. I have discovered the identities of some of the abusers but for now I have precisely followed the judge’s anonymisations whilst I clarify the precise court orders in force. In due course I may, if necessary, apply to the court for a variation.
SHAME – Worthless Labour councillor Doug Taylor is leader of Enfield Council. The abuse happened on his watch, yet he has not apologised to victims and their families.
Recently, the case of The Public Guardian v Matrix Deputies Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2017] EWCOP 14 appeared on BAILII. The case is shocking, but would have been completely secret had not Her Honour Judge Hilder commendably and of the court’s own motion made it public.
In summary, the London Borough of Enfield, by some procurement process that remains opaque (and in relation to which Enfield seem to have ignored my questions), decided to outsource the management of the property and affairs of vulnerable clients. In the UK, if a person lacks mental capacity to manage their finances due to (for example) dementia or severe learning disability, then they may be subject to a Deputyship – a court order appointing someone to do it for them.
Matrix Deputies is a UK limited company and the judge has permitted them to be named. The company and its officers were involved in Deputyships for 52 clients, 8 of which are now dead. The court proceedings began when the UK Public Guardian applied to terminate all of those Deputyships on the grounds of financial abuse. According to the schedules in the judgement, incidents of concern were occurring at least since 2014.
After the Public Guardian made the application it appears at some point the London Borough of Enfield was appointed as an interim Deputy by order of 17 February 2016 was ordered to investigate the affairs of the clients and the dealings by Matrix. This investigation was conducted on the council’s behalf by PwC, the well known accountants. The investigation cost roughly a quarter of a million pounds (£250,000) in part due to non-cooperation by Matrix Deputies. The money has yet to be fully recovered.
The abuse is shocking. There is a schedule of allegations at the bottom of the judgement, and whilst not all are admitted, they are all of concern. In terms of the denied or unadmitted allegations, no finding of fact was made only because Matrix and its officers agreed to be removed as Deputies. Furthermore, several key allegations were admitted and these are the ones I shall focus on.
Matrix Deputies admitted to a series of accounting discrepancies amounting (in the aggregate) to £32,542.74 (schedule items 13-18). It admitted to taking commission on the sale of the homes of vulnerable clients. The barrister for the council described these as ‘kickbacks’. Matrix admitted that it was wrong and in breach of fiduciary duty.
The denied and unproven allegations are also very serious. The judge has included them which means they may be reported. There are several allegations of conflict of interest. A person identified by the judge as ‘JW’ is alleged to have had a conflict of interest being a council consultant and also a director of Matrix. Other allegations are that directors of Matrix employed family members and / or companies they owned to do work for clients at excessive rates.
I decided to write about the case for two reasons – firstly that no one else had yet picked it up and secondly that I have first hand knowledge of Enfield Council’s dubious relationships with external groups. Years before I joined the Conservatives I was a member of the Labour Party and I was employed as the local organiser for Edmonton, one of the three Parliamentary constituencies in Enfield.
On one occasion, I was tasked with organising a demonstration outside the civic centre. At that time, the Conservatives controlled Enfield council and they were cutting grants to a variety of purported charities and groups, many associated with specific ethnicities. Labour activists stood outside with placards chanting. Members of a group called Art-Start (which is still going) held up a banner showing the Conservative leaders menacing a lifeline with an axe (helpfully labelled discrimination). In fairness to them, at least Art-Start have tangible products, unlike many of the other groups.
The problem was that a large number of the groups had, well, not very good accounting practices. They duplicated existing services or their output was hard to measure if it was possible to discern output at all. Many of the groups were associated with specific special interests and their officers were members of the Labour Party. Money paid out would find its way into Labour Party coffers – for example membership dues or donations.
In short I found myself standing outside the civic centre with a fair sized mob I had helped to whip up musing inwardly on the fact that the Conservatives were dead right. It was a defining moment for me and contributed to my later change of party. Enfield is a study in all the problems of the left. It is home to a number of different ethnic and social groups, which some Labour Party officials expressly admitted to me they played off against each other.
12 years after my time in Enfield it seems little has changed, although the consequences in this instance are particularly distressing. The council grants and client groups the Conservatives sought to cut are no more than an example of the way the left has sought to balkanise our society. Enfield is a kind of preview of the future that SJWs would create. The tragic consequences are made all too clear by this court case.
Well respected Conservative Leader Joanne Laban has questions, many questions for the council leadership.
Conservative Leader Joanne Laban responded promptly to request for comment –
“The number one priority of every council is the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children. On this occasion Enfield Council failed to safeguard the vulnerable adults involved in this case. The Labour run Council has a lot of questions to answer on the procurement of Matrix Deputies, why the relationship lasted so long between Enfield Council and Matrix Deputies given their conduct and whether the Council has apologised to the persons involved.”
I put several questions to the London Borough of Enfield. The council responded with a corporate statement. Unlike the Conservative Leader, worthless Labour Leader Doug Taylor let a member of the press team speak for him in a statement that appears to ignore some questions and also admits that, over a year since their appointment as interim Deputy they have not yet ascertained all the victims who may have lost money.
I quote from the council’s statement (in full below) –
“As a result, Enfield Council has already recouped the vast majority of the money belonging to the people whose affairs were being managed by Matrix Deputies and we are in the process of establishing whether anyone has lost money.”
The questions were –
By what process was Matrix engaged by Enfield council?
The statement does not address this.
How many of the directors of Matrix are members of the Labour Party?
The council claims not to know. I suppose I shall have to investigate.
How many of the directors of Matrix and Deputies associated with Matrix have been reported to the police?
The council do not say, asking that I refer to the Police
How many of the directors of Matrix and Deputies associated with Matrix have been reported to the ISA / VBS?
The council do not say, asking that I refer to the Public Guardian
Has anyone associated with Matrix been prosecuted?
The council claims not to know. I suppose I shall have to investigate.
Will you apologise on behalf of the council to the victims and their families?
The statement does not address this.
Will you resign?
The statement does not address this.
The failure by Councillor Taylor to apologise and the unanswered questions about just where the money has gone mean that there are likely to be follow-up articles. I feel that the failure to apologise by Councillor Taylor is a demonstration of his vile contempt for the vulnerable persons who have suffered as a result of the council’s choice of outsourcing partner. He his conduct is beneath contempt.
MHN intends to follow up this story and possibly make court applications for permission to name various anonymous perpetrators and others referred to in the judgement. As yet I am awaiting a response from the council’s legal team. MHN will be pursuing this matter with regulators and has drawn it to the attention of the national media and the Conservative group on Enfield council.
The council’s statement, in full, is below –
“An Enfield Council Spokesperson said: “Enfield Council takes the safeguarding of vulnerable adults very seriously and has worked closely with the Office of the Public Guardian in the proceedings against Matrix Deputies Ltd. which resulted in Matrix being removed from having the responsibility to look after vulnerable people’s finances.
“The Court of Protection is responsible appointing Deputies to manage the financial affairs of vulnerable people who lack capacity. “Matrix Deputies Ltd. where identified by Enfield Council, following a procurement exercise, as a Company that could provide a Deputyship Services to vulnerable adults.“The Office of the Public Guardian is responsible for deciding if a person or company is suitable to be a deputy and has supervisory powers throughout the time a person or company is acting as a deputy.“Action brought by the Office of the Public Guardian and supported by the London Borough of Enfield culminated in the Court of Protection stripping Matrix Deputies of the responsibility for managing the affairs of vulnerable people who lack the capacity to manage their own finances.“As a result, Enfield Council has already recouped the vast majority of the money belonging to the people whose affairs were being managed by Matrix Deputies and we are in the process of establishing whether anyone has lost money.“If we find out a resident has been left out of pocket as a result of the actions of Matrix Deputies Ltd or the other deputies appointed by Matrix, we have court approved arrangements in place to recoup that money from bonds lodged with the Court as a surety by Matrix Deputies, or any other necessary action, to ensure those residents get every penny they are owed, back.“The Court of Protection has also awarded indemnity costs to Enfield Council covering all its costs which we are actively seeking to enforce.”
