A letter to the CQC

Understanding that everything is all due to contracts, this is the kind of letter one might send to that fine institution, the CQC

11.10.10

Dear Jo Williams

                It would appear that in April of next year I will be given the opportunity to enter into contract with you.  I would like to thank you for this opportunity, and so that our contract together can run smoothly under admiralty, I would like to draw your attention to a number of factors that will be a threat to the legal fiction (body corporate) that is your organisation.  These factors may put you in default under admiralty jurisdiction, which may compel vessels such as myself to seek remedy under contract law.  As I am sure you will agree, this should be avoided. 

You may be unaware of the following, as large organisations often fail to report the minutia of daily events to those at the top of the hierarchical pyramid.  It has however been made plainly clear to dentists, through meetings  across the country that there are unlikely to be dentally qualified individuals involved in the inspection process or the appeals process.  This I feel is a monumental error.  What you may also not be aware of is that, in my time working in the profession, nothing has caused more outrage or indignation than the proposed CQC registration.  If nothing else, the CQC has united the profession like never before, and I have never seen so many so upset. 

Please take notice of the following affidavit (if any of the points outlined are false, you should reply to me within 10 days of the date of this letter, outlining the reasons why).   Remember that under contract law, s/he who does not rebut accepts.

Affidavit of truth

1)  There is some question mark as to the appeals process open to dental practices that fall foul of CQC regulations, and according to my reading of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, the CQC appeals process is to the CQC itself and not an independent third party. 

2)  The CQC give 28 days to appeal

3)  The Health and Social care act is not written in language the average layman can understand

4)  The CQC on these 3 points alone contravenes article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998

To clarify (see underlined)

Right to a fair trial

1)  In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice..

2)  Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:.

(a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;.

(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;.

(c) To defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;.

(d) To examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;.

(e)To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

The above needs to be addressed as I feel it threatens to make the lawyers a significant sum of money.

I am also giving you notice that a different approach than the one you are presently adopting is needed.  This is of course just my opinion, one that is probably biased.  You do know however that you face the prospect of dozens, if not hundreds if practice owners utilising their practice legal expense cover in a variety of ways against your organisation.

My proposal

1)  There is no need for CRB checks for dentists.  Dentists are registered with the GDC, who are instantly informed by the police should a registrant break the law.  By removing this requirement, you will deflate much of the rebellion that is brewing.

2)  The CQC should work with the profession, and not impose itself upon the profession.  If you work with dentists, and employ dentists in the inspection and regulatory checks you will obtain balance.  Not to do so will see bad publicity and obstacles put in your path.  I remind you that Statutes only apply when they have the consent of the governed.

3)  The CQC guidance is wishy washy, and written in a manner that the majority cannot understand and decipher.  It thus endangers the public.  The guidance should be concise, preferably in bullet form and give definitive pointers on how to reach compliance.

4)  The staff of the CQC are unfortunately not singing off the same song sheet.  They frequently give conflicting advice/answers.  This again endangers the public.

5)  You MUST work with the GDC, BDA and DPA to remove duplication of reporting requirements.  They should be your partners, not your understudy.

Get it right and you will be praised.  Get it wrong and you will likely find your photo on the front page of the Daily Mail, thus is the nature of our society today.  I hope this helps you in your future endeavours, and if I can be of any assistance. 

And I hope you choose wisely

Yours in commerce