As the manager of a sheltered housing scheme, Linda Coote took pride in caring for her elderly residents. So she didnÂ’t think twice when asked to help a terminally-ill tenant after working hours. But doing so saw Mrs Coote, 55,
breach a ban on dealing with problems after 4.30pm. And it eventually earned her the sack for gross misconduct
""The policy rule is that I cannot work outside of my hours because I am not insured," she said."
So if someone made an emergency call, they could not help.
Taken from their website:
"We are one of the leading providers of affordable and supported housing for people in the UK.
We work to deliver improvements to communities and provide homes for those who may struggle to get them
Does this mean all residents in the housing can sue?
'Mrs Coote admits failing to follow and document health and safety procedures such as checks on doors and fire extinguishers – lapses cited in her dismissal.'
That'll be part of it I expect.
It's a tricky business though when you step out of your professional role.
You can't really comment on the case as her out of hours work was only one of the reasons cited for her dismissal. Failing to check fire escapes and how safe the building is on a regular basis is extremely serious as the residents are vulnerable adults. And we don't know the exact details of the emergency care provision.
Don't just go off the headlines. This just smacks of a case of irresponsible journalism.
'Mrs Coote admits failing to follow and document health and safety procedures such as checks on doors and fire extinguishers – lapses cited in her dismissal.'
That'll be part of it I expect.
Yep, you can ignore the plight of your client, but woe betide you if the boxes aren't ticked
'Mrs Coote admits failing to follow and document health and safety procedures such as checks on doors and fire extinguishers – lapses cited in her dismissal.'
That'll be part of it I expect.
It's a tricky business though when you step out of your professional role.
That'll be a major part of it. It's irresponsible neglect. Care companies can face massive fines and lose contracts if basic safety checks aren't adhered to. Plus, uninsured carers can bring a minefield of problems. The company had made emergency care provision. As a manager she should really have known better.
'Mrs Coote admits failing to follow and document health and safety procedures such as checks on doors and fire extinguishers – lapses cited in her dismissal.'
That'll be part of it I expect.
Yep, you can ignore the plight of your client, but woe betide you if the boxes aren't ticked
Yeah, and if there's a fire and the extinguishers don't work, the fire exits are jammed and the emergency lighting fails I suppose that's ok too, is it?
'Mrs Coote admits failing to follow and document health and safety procedures such as checks on doors and fire extinguishers – lapses cited in her dismissal.'
That'll be part of it I expect.
Yep, you can ignore the plight of your client, but woe betide you if the boxes aren't ticked
Yeah, and if there's a fire and the extinguishers don't work, the fire exits are jammed and the emergency lighting fails I suppose that's ok too, is it?
And when the place burns down, where will the checklists be ? Burned to a crisp, along with the staff training and maintenance records.
Yeah, and if there's a fire and the extinguishers don't work, the fire exits are jammed and the emergency lighting fails I suppose that's ok too, is it?
Of course, then the stupid, small-minded bigoted bastards can have another go at the services for not checking them.
Read the article, and look at the comments - typical people who want to have a go at "authority", because that's what they do.
The woman was naive - there is service provided after a certain time and it is probably best left to them. What would be the reaction if something had gone wrong?
It's probably a good reminder about the issue of social care - and it's not an easy problem to solve. People expect more, but want to pay less.
