This letter (to Mr Walker - Regional Manager of SCOPE) was written by the sister of one of the long term residents at Hampton House in Northamptonshire; a specialised residential home for the severely disabled (cerebral palsy).

Please read it to understand what Scope, a supposedly caring charity for the disabled, are intending to do with long term residents of a wonderful home (30+ years for many) called Hampton House in Northamptonshire.

Please sign this petition and show your support for the residents of Hampton House who are about to be made homeless by SCOPE.

 

Dear Mr. Walker,

I must firstly comment on the bombshell letter sent out by Scope to the families of the residents of Hampton House. To say that it was only explaining ‘proposals’ is disregarding the fact that you were presenting the families with an apparent fait accompli. The letter was clumsy and insensitive and has caused considerable distress to the families. There is no reassurance in the letter. Nowhere does it say ‘Don’t worry. We will not close Hampton House until a superior (I say superior, comparable would be acceptable – but in that case, why close Hampton House at all?) accommodation that each residents wants and chooses to live in is found’. The letter also lacks any information. Nowhere in the letter is alternative accommodation mentioned just ‘changes that take place afterwards’ leaving us all in limbo-land. In this context, telling us the ‘proposals do not mean we will stop improving the service we provide’ is meaningless rhetoric. The letter is vague, leaving everyone fearing and expecting the worst. There is the suspicion that the decision to close has, in effect, already been made. This is not ‘sensitive’ and not ’respectful’, this is uncaring and thoughtless.

You explained to me that Scope have proposed the closure of Hampton House and 10 others because there has been a change in the expectations of disabled people. In the Northamptonshire Chronicle, you called Hampton House old-fashioned and not offering the kind of say that everyone else has over where they live and who they live with (it is actually debateable that everyone really does have say over where they live and who they live with). Shauna Rowe, Scope’s Midlands Area manager, who the families of the residents of Hampton House met with last week, said that Scope want to change society for disabled people and give them more choice and control in their lives and to make this change Scope need to get rid of their large institutions.

On the face of it, these are noble ideals. For many disabled people, living residentially in a care home would be the last option. However, the residents of Hampton House are severely disabled who can do very little for themselves and who need 24 hour care. If this care does not take place within a group and social setting with people like themselves, their quality of life will disappear. They will be isolated, just seeing a succession of anonymous carers. These proposed closures are actually taking choice and control away from the residents. At Hampton House the residents have freedom to move around and visit other residents and staff as they wish. There is not only room to move and interact but also room to be alone or in small groups if they wish. To take away this freedom and impose a horribly isolated life on them is manifestly wrong. One size does NOT fit all.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

The Chair of Scope, in her blog about the closure of these homes says ‘Disabled people want to live independently in their community’. This is a sweeping generalisation that Scope cannot possibly know is true unless they have spoken with every disabled person. I am sure no resident at Hampton House has expressed a wish to live independently. Scope are ignoring the sad fact that most of the severely disabled residents of Hampton House will never be able to live independent lives and to try and impose this impossible and unrealistic ideal on them takes no account of this terribly tragic reality. However, for most of the residents of Hampton House concepts such as choice, control and independence in their lives are less important than stability, continuity of care and being surrounded by people they know and are comfortable with in a sociable environment. To sacrifice all of this for a set of ideals which are frankly not possible and which would lead to a greatly reduced quality of life would be another tragedy for these people who have so little to start with.

Scope also need to qualify this statement by explaining exactly what is meant by ‘living independently’ and ‘living in the community’. If ‘living in the community’ is similar to the ‘care in the community’  programme a few years ago for people with mental health problems, which was a manifest disaster, I can see huge problems ahead for the well-being and care of severely disabled people. Moreover, most of us do not live independently lives – we live inter-dependent lives. We are dependent on family, friends and colleagues for our quality of life. The same is true for the residents of Hampton House. Take Hampton House away and they will lose stability, continuity of care, friendship and therefore their quality of life.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

Scope have decided they do not like disabled people living in large institutions any more. I would dispute that Hampton House is large (only 24 residents) or an institution (it is a home). However, whether Scope like it or not, the residents will be’ institutionalised’ as so many of them have been there for a very long time. Some have been there since it opened. All but 3 of the residents are over 40. To expect them to be able to cope away from this sort of care is unrealistic and short-sighted. It would in fact be very traumatic for them and it is a disgrace that Scope are proposing to do just that.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

Following on from that, Scope seem to not be taking into consideration at all this fact that the majority of the residents have been living at Hampton House for over 20 years. Indeed, many have been there since it opened in the ‘70s. In addition, and amazingly, several of the staff have been working there since Hampton House opened and many others have been there for 10 and 20 years. This is almost unheard of in this sort of care environment where there is traditionally a very high turnover of staff. All this means is that Hampton House is unique (although I suspect the other homes proposed for closure will be similar). It is like a family. The residents and staff know each other and understand each other and interact as a family does. For my brother, both the staff and the other residents are his friends, his helpers, his colleagues and the people he interacts with and who he is at ease with. Hampton House is his home where he feels safe and looked after with people he knows. To throw away the years of understanding, experience, knowledge and love that these long-term staff have at Hampton House with the long-term residents would be unforgiveable.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

We know, and so should Scope, that disabled people, especially people as severely disabled as the residents of Hampton House, react badly to change. It took my brother about 10 years to settle properly at Hampton House and Scope now want him to go through that again at the age of 48? He will struggle massively in a new place (however superior) without his present carers and his friends (the other residents). For these mainly long-term residents closing Hampton House would be a massive, traumatic upheaval to their, at present, stable lives. To take these vulnerable adults’ home away from them without having anything at least as good to replace it with is cruel, unnecessary, unjustifiable and unforgiveable.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

Scope also talk about consultation with the residents of Hampton House. They appear to have no knowledge or understanding of the communication problems most of the residents of Hampton House have, including my brother. He is highly suggestible and will respond to loaded questions in the expected positive or negative way, regardless of the consequences of what it may actually mean and I suspect this is true of many of the residents. I have visited Hampton House several times in the last few weeks and it is clear that some of the residents have realised the implications of your proposal. They are frightened. They are frightened they are going to lose the home they love and feel secure and cared for in. They are frightened about where they are going to live. How dare you do this to some of the most vulnerable people in our society? What Scope have already done is cruel. What Scope is proposing to do is cruel. Scope should be ashamed.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

Hampton House might not be perfect. It is a bit shabby. They could have more activities (although I note that the activities staff member was made redundant). They do, however, live in the community! They have strong links with Northampton College and have many groups visiting them. My brother regularly goes on shopping expeditions, days out, lunches in pubs and evenings to the theatre or pub (again!) and goes on holiday every year. More could be done, but any small lack (mainly caused by financial considerations) is offset by the family atmosphere and happy feeling you get at Hampton House among both the residents and staff. Visit, for example, on a Saturday evening and you will see the residents and staff whooping it up to Strictly or X Factor and having a great time. It is also offset by the awful prospect of the lack of a decent, appropriate and comparable alternative. There are a couple at Hampton House who were living ‘independently in the community’. They have ‘chosen’ instead to live at Hampton House where they have new friends and a social life. In Scope’s own website you say ‘The aim at Hampton House is to maximise choice, opportunities for personal development and independence for disabled people with complex needs’. What has changed? 

I wonder how much Scope know or care about severely disabled adults. I also wonder about how much this move is prompted by financial considerations. The plot of land Hampton House occupies must be worth a lot of money.

This awful process is being repeated in 10 other care homes throughout the country, with the same lack of consideration as to what is going to happen to the residents and where they are going to go. So much for quality of care.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

Now we come to the crux of the matter. If Scope disregarded everything that I have said above, if the residents, families and staff were happy for Hampton House to close, the fact remains that there is nowhere even comparable for them all to go to. From my recent research of accommodation for severely disabled adults in Central England, the alternative to this supposed independence is living in a care home mainly specialising in care for the elderly, which is wholly inappropriate for the residents of Hampton House. There are a few places which would be ok but none of them have vacancies – nor are likely to have in the future as they are, by their very nature, long-term facilities.

WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

How can Scope possibly justify proposing  to close Hampton House (and the other 10 Homes) until they are sure there is alternative, superior accommodation available in the area ready for the 24 residents of Hampton House you are proposing to make homeless to move into? You cannot close these establishments without ensuring there is something better to replace it. This HAS to be done first otherwise you will not be able to ‘deliver the highest possible quality of support’. Scope are proposing to close these homes due to some ideological mindset which ignores the reality of life for these residents and you are replacing them with NOTHING. These vulnerable adults will end up in sad, lonely isolation or in an elderly peoples’ home. What Scope should be doing, before even considering closures, is ensuring there is plenty of alternative accommodation (in this case 147 places) and if there isn’t, to adapt existing buildings or build new, modern up-to -date facilities for all the residents and staff to move into together. However, you have told me neither of these things are going to happen... So, where are they all going to go? Who are all these ‘alternative providers’? At the meeting at Hampton House ‘Delos’ was mentioned. Delos are, as far as I can discover, a private company mainly dealing with people with learning disabilities. The problem with private companies is they are motivated by money and do things on the cheap. We only have to look at the multiple stories of poor care and abuse in the country’s private care homes for the elderly to know that this will never be an ‘appropriate’ alternative to Hampton House. Scope talk about making difficult decisions but what Scope is actually doing is abrogating its responsibility to these people, to my brother. Shame on all of you.

In my phone conversation with you, you gave me a verbal guarantee that Hampton House would not close until a suitable, appropriate placement is found for every resident. I would like that guarantee in writing please. I also need you to provide me with a list of all alternative providers, preferably charities or Local Authorities (good luck there..), of comparable accommodation suitable for the residents of Hampton House in Central England, whether they have vacancies or not.

I would like a list of all the Scope trustees and their email addresses and I would also like the email address of the Chief Executive of Scope. I also request a copy of the review and the proposals.

Finally, and again, WHERE ARE THEY ALL GOING TO GO?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Sister of Hampton House resident

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Re-develop Hampton House, Northampton, rather than close it.