Page 200 - 11. 2019 New 26-05-21 No Table

200
116,
I did not get any updates from Ludmilla Iyavoo at this stage or any reasons it was not put
forward to the panel on that date. I again emailed Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo on the 01/10/2018 and
after talking to Lemmy Nwabuisi on the 02/10/2018 via a phone call I sent a next email to Ms
Ludmilla Iyavoo asking for an update on the 02/10/2018, I did get a reply on the 02/10/2018
from Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo stating she had been in meetings and was unable to attend to my
voice messages calls or emails, and that she was taking instructions from her office and
would get back to me in due cause. I again emailed Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo on the 07/10/2018 as
I still had not had any updates, I did not get a reply so again sent an email on the 09/10/2018
to Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo, on the 12/10/2018 I did get a reply to that email, but from my
emailed it would have been very clear I wanted it to go to the panel, at that point I was very
busy and did not have time to reply to that email, I then got an next email on the 15/10/2018
from Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo stating court action was going to start. At this point I knew in my
heart Enfield Council was never going to put this to the panel and only wanted one thing and
this was the real reason it took Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo so long to reply to my emails and calls,
so it was around this time I made arrangements to see my son’s MP as I felt I was not getting
anywhere and through maybe it was better coming from the MP.
The issue with appointments being made they are for my son to go to the clinic; I have told
them many times my son does not leave the flat and a home appointment should be made
which they are still falling to do. I spoke to Soohah Appadoo, North Locality Team more than
once saying this is an issue and been told he will get back to me regarding it after he has a
meeting with his team about it but he has not done this yet.
If you are now agreeing that the court did not actually record that my son submits a housing
transfer application on the condition that he engages with mental health team, why has
Enfield Council been stating this to everyone as this is incorrect is it not? I believe this should
be corrected should it not?
Yes, I agreed to talk with the mental health team which I have done, and it is clear I have
done this as it stated in your letters and replies to the MP, so I am doing what I
200
117,
was asked to do by Enfield Council at court, so why is Enfield Council not doing what they
were meant to do?
This section in the court order “AND UPON the Defendants mother agreeing to engage
with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the Defendant could receive assistance with
his mental health conditions and housing.” is also something I did not agree to, and it was
this point I asked to be rewritten or removed along with other sections. The reason I did not
agree to it being written in the court order was due to the fact I knew I was limited in what I
could do with the mental health team, and really the way the draft court order is worded by
Enfield Council was not said in court that way and was I believe only written this way for
Enfield Council to get out of moving my son.
There is only so much I can do as my son has rights even under the mental health act, so
when I agreed I knew I would be limited in what I could do. It seems Enfield Council are just
passing the buck over to anyone they can and not doing anything to help my son and passing
incorrect information over all the time to people.
There is a duty of care and so far, Enfield Council has beached that in every way possible
regarding my son, also the beaches in data protection is beyond anything I have ever seen
when is this going to stop? By now you would have the complaint outcome letter that was
submitted to the mental health team which was upheld, which should have been learned from,
but it seems the sharing of information regarding my son is even worse now than when it was