What would you do if you became aware that someone who claims to have a diagnosis of dementia is being used and abused by a ‘company’ that claims to be involved in the care industry?
That someone may well have mental health and other issues to deal with, and without wishing to disrespect them at all, they are well aware that they are being used.
That someone knows exactly what is going on but they are unwilling to listen to any advice or comment that comes their way. It’s not in their own best interests to do so.
However, it is in the best interests of their own quest for fame and glory. So they are unlikely to question the advances that have been made to them, all in the very best marketing interests of a ‘company’ that has absolutely no previous history (apart from a few failed attempts), no track record, that changes its website almost daily to reflect its latest ‘acceptable face’, but still a ‘company’ that has absolutely nothing to do with the care industry. In spite of the way it allows itself to be described. In fact, it describes almost every aspect of itself on its website incorrectly, misleadingly and with abominable cunning.
A ‘company’, that is, that has absolutely no right to use the word ‘care’ in its online description of itself, let alone to encourage vulnerable people to support their misleading claims and to perpetuate the misleading descriptions of itself. Globally now!!!! A ‘company’ that loves the word ‘global’ and encourages its prey to use the same word.
A ‘company’ that made the first and every subsequent approach to the vulnerable adult and managed to persuade him to go along with their plan. All in the best marketing interests of the ‘company’ trying to devise a present and a future for itself, and also in the best interests of a vulnerable adult who cannot resist attention, flattery and support in his quest for fame.
A ‘company’ that fails, time and time again, to correct any of the information being circulated by their found prey.
A ‘company’ that encourages the vulnerable adult to continue to promote it, albeit via incorrect information sources. All that information remains uncorrected by the vulture.
What would you do, in the face of such vicious abuse of a vulnerable adult who may – or may not – be living with a diagnosis of dementia?
All replies will be received with thanks, and will be considered in depth,
Care in the UK 
From reading your blog I can see that you are concerned about this. There are elements of the Mental Capacity Act that come into this discussion. Mental capacity is known to fluctuate, but there are safeguards that must be considered by anyone dealing with dementia. If this company has been dealing with someone with dementia the Mental Capacity Act places an obligation on that company to ensure that all decisions and the consequences of those decisions are fully understood by the person in question. That applies even more to a company that describes itself using the word care in its description.
A company such as the one you have described is bound by the Mental Capacity Act if and when they engage with someone who is known to them as having a diagnosis of dementia, whether or not that person does actually have dementia. It’s not down to the company to decide whether someone has or has not a diagnosis of dementia. However, if that company has reason to believe that the person has dementia, they are equally obligated to make sure that the person understands in full the consequence of their involvement in this marketing ploy. That’s the question you need to ask of the company involved in this. That company is unlikely to answer your question so you need to go elsewhere.
You should contact the Safeguarding unit within social services. You should contact Trading Standards and a few other bods such as the OFT.
This is clearly a case for Trading Standards and also The Police. There is something totally wrong about this firm; at the best they are misleading and at the worst scamming. I wouldnt touch this kind of company with a bargepole, but I would report them to Trading Standards for a start.
What they are doing with this individual is exploiting him and his weakness. If he has a huge ego, he’s not likely to be able to resist the flattery that comes from the company you describe so they are both exploiting each other in a way, dementia or not. If the person with dementia is spreading their misleading image as a care company, it’s the company that’s the wrongdoer more than the vulnerable old person. Ian Cresswell.