GSCC refuses to discipline Corrupt Social Worker

UPDATE 27 May 2012

We have now taken legal opinion on the criminal behaviour of this former York social worker. This was what we were told, “he has recently been the subject of parliamentary comment openly alleging corruption by a gang of council officers and police officers, one of whom is Mr Bednarski.  The evidence I have collected against him is overwhelming, has been reviewed by a leading criminal barrister and there is no doubt in his mind or mine that there is enough to arrest and convict him for very serious offences.”

The GSCC, the body supposedly ensuring rogue social workers are held to account, does not find anything wrong with one of its members committing serious criminal offences against a helpless old lady in their care.

Are any vulnerable people safe so long as corrupt officials are running the government of the once proud county of Britain?

******

Mark Bednarski used to work for York Social Services. Part of the story of his involvement in the abuse of Grandma B is told elsewhere on this blog. For a time, he was responsible for the care of Grandma B’s late husband. His catastrophic breach of his duty of care and his criminal behaviour played a role in the death of Grandma B’s husband and the unlawful eviction of Grandma B from her home by corrupt York social workers.

Grandma B’s carer made a formal complaint about Mr Bednarski to the General Social Care Council (GSCC), which states that it,

“is the regulator of the social work profession and social work education in England. We protect the public by requiring high standards of education, conduct and practice of all social workers. Social workers work with some of the most vulnerable people in society, so it is vital that we ensure that only those who are properly trained and committed to high standards practise social work.”

The GSCC also claims,

“We do this by maintaining a compulsory register of social workers and issuing and enforcing the codes of practice for the profession. The codes of practice set out the standards of professional conduct and practice required by social workers as they go about their daily work. They are intended to ensure that employers, colleagues, service users, carers and members of the public know what standards they can expect from registered social workers.”

The GSCC further states,

 “On receipt of a referral about a social worker from a member of the public, an employer, or other, we will undertake sufficient enquiries to determine whether there is a specific allegation of misconduct against a registered social worker. If this is established, we will gather information about the referral and look to see if there is evidence of misconduct that calls into question their suitability to be on the Social Care Register.”

If only that were true.

Grandma B’s carer first reported York Social Services and in particular Mark Bednarski to the GSCC on 15 March 2011. It is now November 2011 and nothing has been done about the systematic abuse of Grandma B undertaken by York social workers over the past three years.

Grandma B’s carer reported Bednarski for the following offences,

– Blocking an investigation into the abuse of Grandma B and her late husband by their older son and his family.

– Blocking attempts to resolve the dispute between the abusers and their victims.

– Expecting Grandma B’s bed-ridden husband to attend a meeting in his office in person, with his older son without adequate supervision, knowing he is psychotic and uncontrollably violent.

– Falsifying records by inventing conversations with Grandma B’s late husband that never took place, but where he supposedly made statements that favoured the interests of his abusers.

– Cancelling Grandma B and her late husband’s application for sheltered housing without informing them.

– Informing Grandma B’s last husband of the details of the abusive activities of his older son and his grandchildren when he knew he had mental health issues and this information was likely to cause him considerable distress.

– Fabricating an assault allegation against Grandma B’s carer, who is middle-aged and overweight, when he is a martial arts expert.

– Attempting to prejudice the litigation Grandma B had started to put an end to the abuse.

– Making false statements to the independent investigators about his relationship with my parents’ abusers.

– Withholding important information from the independent investigators.

– Making false allegations of abuse against the carer to the Local Government Ombudsman

– Making false accusations of harassment against the carer to the police.

One would have hoped that reports of abuse against a vulnerable old person would have got a rapid response. However, the GSCC only acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 7 April 2011, after Grandma B’s carer had chased them for a reply. He was told,

 “The initial assessment has been completed and the case has been forwarded for further investigation.”

In the following weeks, her carer sent further evidence of abuse and criminal offences committed by Mark Bednarski, including theft and breaches of the Data Protection Act. The GSCC did not respond. Finally, on 4 May 2011, two months after the complaint was first made, it was allocated to an Investigating Officer by the name of Kalina Shipkov, who wrote to the carer stating,

“The complaint has been allocated to me and I have also been forwarded the additional information that you have provided since submitting your complaint. I will carry out further investigations in relation to the complaint. If the GSCC is of the view that there is a real prospect of finding misconduct in relation to the complaint, we will refer the complaint to be considered by a Conduct Committee.”

Well, that seems clear enough, doesn’t it? Bednarski had already been fired by York Social Services for misconduct. The GSCC had been sent a substantial amount of documentary evidence. The allegations were both serious and substantiated, and a precedence had been set. Bednarski would surely be disciplined by the GSCC as well, and as he is a danger to vulnerable people, his licence to continue as a social worker would surely be withdrawn and as quickly as possible to protect the vulnerable people to whom he had access.

That is what any reasonable person would think, isn’t it?

May came and went. So did June. Towards the end of June, there was a glimmer of hope of action, when the Investigating Officer wrote,

“I appreciate your concerns regarding the progress of your complaint and apologise that this has not moved as swiftly as you would have liked. However, I want to assure you that your complaint has received regular attention from both myself and in discussions with my manager.

“The information received to date is in the process of being considered by a review panel to look at which direction to proceed with the case. I expect to be able to provide you with an update regarding their decision by next week. Unfortunately, until that time I cannot provide you with any further information but will let you know as soon as possible.

“Once again, I appreciate your frustration but I will be in touch with you next week with further information from our review panel.”

There is nothing like haste when safeguarding the vulnerable, is there?

Then on 1 July, the Investigating Officer wrote stating,

 I am aware that in my email to you dated 22 June 2011 I advised you that your complaint is being reviewed by a panel and that you would receive notification of their decision this week.

 “Unfortunately, I will not be able to provide this for you as there have been some delays with the review process. I appreciate that you would like the matter dealt with promptly but please be assured that I will contact you as soon as possible with information regarding the panel’s decision.”

Are we beginning to note a certain reluctance to deal with this issue here?

Well July passed, and on the last day of the month, the carer wrote to the Investigating Officer noting,

 “…with some concern that one month has passed since you last contacted me and you have still not come back to me regarding my complaint about former York social worker Mark Bednarski.

“As you are aware, I first raised my concerns about this habitual abuser of the vulnerable being allowed to continue to be a registered social worker despite the mass of evidence I have sent you of his criminal activities against my late father, my now 82 year-old disabled mother and I, their full-time carer.

“I have attached the original complaint I made against him on 24 April 2011 and would remind you that the fraud investigator I have working on this case has since then established:

1) Mr Bednarski forged some of the “evidence” of my alleged harassment of him.

2) Mr Bednarski stole e-mails from his employer, who dismissed him for fabricating an assault allegation against me, and used these as “evidence” to support his allegations. Theft is a criminal offence.

3) Mr Bednarski is keeping a file on my elderly mother and I, and is clearly an obsessed, disturbed person. As he is also a martial arts expert, then my 82 year old mother is in fear of him.

“In the circumstances, I find the incessant delays in dealing with this case incomprehensible, as we are all aware that other vulnerable people may well be in danger from this clearly unbalanced person.”

The Investigating Officer responded,

“The matter is still under investigation and no final decision has been made about your complaint. I will be contacting you once a decision has been made, which I anticipate will be over the next 3-4 weeks.”

What! Bednarski is clearly off his tiny little rocker and a danger to Grandma B! Her carer responded by making a formal complaint about the failure to deal with this case.

On 22 August 2011, Gerald Wheatley, the Team Manager (Investigations) responded, stating,

“…we are in the process of finalising our decision in your case and hope to provide you with details of this in the week commencing 5^th September 2011”.

Well, it seems that chasing these people geed them up a bit. Wheatley wrote back on 31 August stating,

 “Please find attached our letter to you regarding the complaint you made against Mr Bednarski.  The letter explains that are closing the case and our reasons for doing so.”

And what were the reasons?

 “The GSCC came to this decision because your complaint did not make any allegations against which a conduct hearing was likely to find misconduct. … There is a lack of evidence and or specific details in relation to the other allegations.  It seems to the GSCC that the underpinning factor to the complaint is essentially a family dispute. In view of this we did not feel it would be appropriate to intervene.”

Excuse me, but York Council fired Bednarski for misconduct, so how could the GSCC possibly consider it not likely that it would find misconduct? Lack of evidence? One only has to look at the small part of the overwhelming evidence presented on this blog to realise this is a flimsy excuse. And when a social worker commits serious criminal offences against vulnerable people for whom he has a duty of care and their carer, this is “essentially a family dispute”. I see.

Grandma B’s carer then appealed the decision. As he suspected no proper investigation had been conducted, he then made a Freedom of Information application for sight of the file. The result of the FOI application, which, unlike the complaint about this rogue social worker, was dealt with correctly and in good time, showed that the carer’s suspicions were correct. The GSCC told him,

“I can confirm that we do hold the information you have requested and that because the case was closed before the Interim Investigations stage, the detail and content of the case has not been made public.”

So the case was closed without being properly investigated and a potentially violent and psychotic man with a history of abusing the vulnerable and of conspiring with criminals to defraud the defenceless is allowed to continue being a social worker without serious allegations being properly investigated.

The carer then went back to Mrs Bansri Thomas, the Section Leader – Complaints & Representations at the GSCC, who is handling the appeal, pointing out that the GSCC’s FOI department had confirmed the main point of the appeal – there has not been a proper investigation – had now been confirmed by her own office.

Her response was to,

“… acknowledge receipt of your email below and to inform you that I hope to provide you with a substantive response in due course.”

It was now November 2011, eight months after the complaint was first made. All the GSCC has done is to prevaricate, avoid dealing with the issue and lie. The carer then replied, telling Mrs Thomas,

 “If I do not get a firm assurance from you by 5 PM on Monday 14 November 2011 that the GSCC will conduct a full, thorough and open investigation into my allegations, then I will take further action. The first thing that will happen is that my mother will post a new page on her blog with this story.”

You guessed.

 Right to silence, so here is the story.

 A psychotic social worker with a track record of abusing vulnerable people in his care and habitually committing criminal offences against them is allowed to keep his license, despite the fact that one of his victims lives in mortal fear of him.

 Yep, that is how seriously the GSCC takes its duty of care to the vulnerable.

*******

Just in case those accused did not pick up this blog, we sent them an e-mail earlier today, which they have now received. It reads,

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	Fwd: Re: Complaint re Mr Bednarski
Date:	Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:47:49 +0100
From:	Peter Hofschröer
To:	Kalina Shipkov, Bansri Thomas, Gerald Wheatley, Customer Complaints,

Hi!

This story has now been published on Grandma B’s blog under:

https://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com/1-new-items/gscc-refuses-to-discipline-corrupt-social-worker/

May I remind you of her policy when making serious allegations against corrupt officials?

We would also like to reiterate that Grandma B – the owner of this site – operates a RIGHT TO REPLY policy.

Any of the people named on this site are welcome to send it a rebuttal to the serious criminal offences of which they stand accused.

On the other hand, they are, of course, entitled to exercise their RIGHT OF SILENCE and not incriminate themselves any further.

If those accused do not avail themselves of their right to reply, then Grandma B will take that as acceptance of the veracity of her allegations.
Your call!

*****

Yep, right to silence.