EXCLUSIVE Suicide-risk young daughter was refused NHS mental-health counselling because she goes to private school, mother claims
Because the youngster was being bullied at a state school, her despairing parents had only just moved her to a private school.
But when she was finally assessed by mental-health services at Somerset NHS Foundation Trust after months on the waiting list, her mother claims she was told: 'If you can afford private school fees, you can afford private counselling.'
The woman, from Somerset, who wishes to remain anonymous to avoid further prejudice towards her daughter, said: 'I was shocked and incensed.
'I was even told that if I had kept my daughter at a state school, they would have helped her. It's blatant discrimination.'
The girl, now 12, had been diagnosed as autistic a year earlier, but her symptoms had become more severe and her mental health had deteriorated.
She was referred to the Child and Adult Mental Health Service (CAMHS), which is part of the NHS, for help with her anxiety while she waited for treatment for her autism.
Her mother said: 'I couldn't work any more because I was looking after my daughter and fighting to get her the care she needed. My husband works in construction.
'We are not rich. The only reason we moved her to a prep school is because we inherited a small amount of money, and we were so worried about her going downhill in her previous school.'
She said that after being bullied, her daughter was at a 'very low ebb', adding: 'It culminated in her wanting to kill herself.
'I was even worried about leaving her alone upstairs.'
After months on the CAMHS waiting list the woman and her daughter had a video-call assessment with a senior mental health practitioner. The mother said: 'We were desperate, but she spent ten minutes talking to my daughter and it was clear she wasn't interested. She displayed no empathy whatsoever.
'She said that if we could afford private school fees we could afford to pay for private counselling. It was such an arrogant attitude.
'She assumed we were rich – we aren't. We pay our taxes, and the NHS should provide for all children.'
Her GP received a letter from the CAMHS practitioner written on the same day, that said: 'Based on the additional information gathered, we will be closing the referral to CAMHS.'
The mother said: 'They failed our child. I remember her sneering tone.'
Somerset NHS Foundation Trust said: 'There is no policy, formal or informal, to exclude children who attend private schools.'
It follows last week's Mail on Sunday exclusive about an eight-year-old boy in Richmond, south-west London, who was refused an NHS assessment for a disabling joint condition because he went to a private school. Last night, Kingston and Richmond NHS Trust said it was investigating.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
AstraZeneca boss mulls New York listing in fresh blow for City: Exodus risks transforming London into a 'global backwater'
The boss of Britain's biggest listed firm is considering shifting its stock market listing to the US in a move that raised fears the City could become a global backwater. AstraZeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot is reportedly weighing what would be a devastating blow to the London Stock Exchange. The move comes amid growing frustration with the UK's rules on approving new medicines as well as a row over drug prices between the industry and the NHS. Soriot has spoken privately of his desire to move the FTSE 100 drugs giant's listing on multiple occasions. He has also considered moving AstraZeneca's headquarters away from the UK as well as its main stock market listing, the Times reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. Shares have fallen by 17 per cent over the past year. They rose 2.8 per cent, or 282p, to 10,402p following the report. Soriot, 66, has previously criticised the UK and the rest of Europe for falling behind other countries such as the US and China in developing medicines. In April, he said that innovation in pharmaceuticals 'has mostly been funded by the US'. The company has also been heavily investing in China, which Soriot considers to be a major untapped source of sales. AstraZeneca is the largest company on the London Stock Exchange with a value of £158billion. A move would deal a severe blow to the beleaguered UK market, which has been hit by a number of defections. It is also likely to fuel fears that other major British firms, including oil giant Shell and miners Glencore and Rio Tinto, all of whom have previously considered moving away from London, could follow suit. Michael Healy, UK Managing Director at trading platform IG, said: 'Another week, another potential hammer blow to the UK stock market. We're in dangerous waters – London risks becoming a global backwater unless something changes fast.' Charles Hall, head of research at broker Peel Hunt, said: 'This is another warning shot that we cannot take our capital markets for granted.' But Soriot is likely to face stiff resistance from members of the company's board of directors as well as from the Government. Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at broker AJ Bell, said such a move would be 'difficult to pull off' for AstraZeneca, which declined to comment.
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Pet insurer charged £250 excess THREE times after our black labrador's single operation: SALLY SORTS IT
We took our black labrador retriever Vicki to the vet because she had some lumps on her skin. Four of the lumps were of concern and needed removing. This was done in January this year. Analysis revealed that they were all non-cancerous tumours. We made a claim on our insurance with John Lewis (underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance). As Vicki was over nine years old, we had to pay 20 per cent of the remaining claim bill after the excess of £250, which we understood. The bill was £1,550 and we expected £1,040 to be reimbursed. But we only got £640 as the insurer took three excesses of £250 each. Please help. J.L., Essex. Sally Hamilton replies: The operation was a success and thankfully Vicki is fine. But you were shocked at being billed for three excesses totalling £750. Your policy certainly states that an excess must be paid for 'each accident or illness'. But I felt, like you, these excesses were excessive, as your beloved pet had undergone only one operation to remove the various tumours from her skin. In its initial letter of explanation, John Lewis emphasised that as there were three different types of lump, this meant there were three conditions and that an excess must be applied to each one. You argued that although benign, they were all skin tumours and surely amounted to one condition. I asked John Lewis to check your claim had been handled fairly. Its conclusion, I'm afraid, was that it remained confident in its original assessment. It added that applying an excess for each diagnosed condition in this way is a 'common approach for many' insurers in the industry. I asked around about this claim. One broker I spoke to said it is not always dealt with this way. Sometimes tumours, even different types, that appear all at the same time can potentially be treated as one condition. But this was not the case with John Lewis and Royal & Sun Alliance, and you have been left licking your wounds over its triple excess grab. A spokesman says: 'While we fully sympathise with J.L.'s situation, we're confident that we provided the right costs to cover Vicki's veterinary bills, given she experienced three different types of tumours.' Ulez fine misery On July 18 last year, I drove to London to renew my daughter's passport. I am not used to driving in the capital and did not realise that I had crossed into the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) area, which required me to pay a charge. I only became aware of an issue nine months later when I received a letter from debt collection agency CDER Group warning me bailiffs may be called if I didn't pay a penalty charge that had risen to £355. I called CDER immediately and was told that Transport for London had sent all previous correspondence regarding this charge to the house next door – number 55 not 57. These letters were not passed to me. I feel hard done by, as I did not have the opportunity to pay the penalty early. A.P., Southampton. Sally Hamilton replies: It seemed odd that all previous correspondence had gone to an incorrect address, while the scary debt collection letter managed to reach you. This was because CDER does routine checks with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and other sources, and discovered the anomaly. Meanwhile, I was astonished your neighbours hadn't been neighbourly enough to pass on the letters to you, which could have avoided the hassle. But you said the property is used for short-term rentals and you didn't know the people who lived there at the time. Scam Watch Drivers should beware a scam text that says you must pay a fine for leaving your engine on, consumer website Which? warns. Tricksters claim you must pay a 'parking infringement fine' by a certain date – and if you fail to pay, you could be forced to stump up 'further penalties' and even face 'prosecution'. The text directs you to a link and asks you to enter your registration number to pay your fine. But the link will lead to a malicious website designed to steal your personal and financial details. Do not click on the link – instead, forward the text to 7726. You naturally wanted to avoid the nasty £355 penalty you didn't deserve. Though it was a long time since the initial penalty charge was issued, there is an option to make an 'out of time' appeal against the charge for those who have good reasons. But you felt overwhelmed by the process, which requires you to complete a special form that must be sworn before an official such as a solicitor, Justice of the Peace or County Court officer. Instead, you came to me. I asked TfL if it could be more lenient considering you had never seen the earlier correspondence. TfL investigated your case and I am pleased to tell you it decided to let you off. A TfL spokesman says: 'We are sorry for the distress that A.P. has experienced. Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are issued to a vehicle's registered keeper, based on information from the DVLA. 'In this case, the PCN was issued to the address on the DVLA records, which led to the PCNs being progressed to enforcement action. The incorrect address in the DVLA records has since been updated. We have used our discretion to cancel any outstanding charges.' Any motorist unfairly slapped with a PCN should submit a representation with evidence that they are not liable, ideally within the timescales, typically 28 days. TfL does also consider mitigating circumstances and uses its discretion in deciding whether to cancel a charge, as it did in your case. PCNs are posted to the registered keeper of a car based on details held with the DVLA, so drivers should check with the agency that these are accurate to avoid mishaps. Importantly, drivers can avoid trouble by ensuring they familiarise themselves with the charges they are likely to face when driving into London, including Ulez and the congestion charge. The Ulez charge in London is £12.50 a day for cars that do not meet the required emission standards and are not exempt. The congestion charge costs £15 a day for those driving into the congestion zone between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and between noon and 6pm on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as bank holidays. Straight to the point I bought several dresses from John Lewis to try on for a wedding this month and sent back two. But it won't refund me for one of them, worth £95, as it says it has 'deodorant marks and sweat' on it. The clear inference is that I purchased the dress, wore it for an event and then tried to send it back. Please help. R.W., via email. John Lewis says it refunded one of the dresses but as the other had deodorant marks it cannot give you a refund. It says it would be unfair to sell this to another customer. *** In May I visited Crete on a Loveholidays package holiday but the hotel was such a let-down, with mould around the ceiling, leaking taps and more. I tried to get in touch with Loveholidays via my son's phone, as mine wasn't working, but received no reply. The owner had another room available but it still had issues and cost an extra €200 – so we had to find our own accommodation. It has now said it will refund us just £27.45. S.H., Felixstowe. Loveholidays apologises and says it did try to make contact with you, which you didn't receive until after you left the hotel. It has refunded you for the full cost of the accommodation. *** My sister has learning difficulties and several health issues so my wife and I have started to help manage her money. We submitted her meter readings to her energy supplier in February and then received a bill which said she was £10,824 in credit. We asked for this to be refunded and the supplier said they'd need to get it signed off by a manager. But it's now been so long the supplier won't speak to me unless I get permission, again, from my sister, who is now in hospital. B.D., Kent. The energy provider apologises and says a refund of almost £12,000 has been made. Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@ — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Could your gut protect you from toxic plastics?
Could your gut protect you from the toxic impacts of forever chemicals? Forever chemicals, also known as 'PFAS,' are long-lasting, synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since the 1950s. They're found in waterproof clothing, non-stick pans, plastic food packaging, and firefighting foams. Exposure to the chemicals may be tied to negative health impacts, including fertility, developmental delays in children, a weakened immune system, increased cholesterol levels, and a heightened risk of some cancers. There are thousands of forever chemicals that have potentially varying effects and toxicity levels. Now, scientists say they've discovered that some bacteria found in the human gut have the ability to absorb the chemicals — and potentially protect from associated health impacts. 'We found that certain species of human gut bacteria have a remarkably high capacity to soak up PFAS from their environment at a range of concentrations, and store these in clumps inside their cells,' Dr. Kiran Patil, a member of the British University of Cambridge's MRC Toxicology Unit, explained in a statement. 'Due to aggregation of PFAS in these clumps, the bacteria themselves seem protected from the toxic effects.' Patil was the senior author of the research, which was published in the journal Nature Microbiology. To reach these conclusions, the researchers inserted several species of bacteria from the human gut into mice. The study found that nine species of the bacteria gathered the forever chemicals the rodents ate and then pooped out. When exposed to increasing levels of the chemicals, the bacteria worked even harder, consistently removing the same percentage of the toxic chemicals. Within just minutes of exposure, the bacterial species soaked up between a quarter and nearly two-thirds of the forever chemicals. The same effect has not yet been tested in humans, but the researchers said they plan to use their findings to create probiotic dietary supplements that boost the levels of these species in the gut to shield against any PFAS-related health harms. They are also looking at how they could turbo-charge the species' performance. 'The reality is that PFAS are already in the environment and in our bodies, and we need to try and mitigate their impact on our health now,' Dr. Indra Roux, a researcher at the University of Cambridge's MRC Toxicology Unit and a co-author of the study, said. Until then, the researchers say the best thing people can do to protect themselves is to avoid known risks for exposure. Although, even tap water has been contaminated: nearly half of all tap water in America. Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to weaken Biden-era standards limiting the pollution of potentially-toxic 'forever chemicals' in U.S. drinking water sources earlier this year. 'PFAS were once considered safe, but it's now clear that they're not,' added fellow researcher Dr. Anna Lindell. 'It's taken a long time for PFAS to become noticed because at low levels they're not acutely toxic. But they're like a slow poison.'
