Blowing the whistle

Letter to Angela Eagle, MP, et al....

2010-03-12T11:30:00.001Z

The following letter had been made available to this website:

From: The Loose Cannon
To: eaglea@parliament.uk
Cc: phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk ; chrisjohnson@mercurypress.co.uk ; fieldf@parliament.uk ; hesfords@parliament.uk ; coopery@parliament.uk ; SHAWJ@parliament.uk ; camerond@parliament.uk ; cleggn@parliament.uk ; browng@parliament.uk ; Justin Dunn
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:16 AM
Subject: Copy Letter to DLA re DWP appointeeship

Dear Ms Eagle,

The following is a copy of a letter that has today been sent to the Disability Living Allowance in Blackpool.

As this affects your constituents as well as your Governmental department I'm sure you will wish to take this matter up at the highest level in order to prevent the further abuse of people with learning disabilities.

Sincerely,m
(signed)

Customer Services Manager
Warbreck House
Warbreck Hill Road
Blackpool FY2 0ZG
12 March 2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

Serious concerns about Appointees

I understand that recently Chris Winstanley, acting on behalf of Wirral Borough Council, applied for, and was granted, Appointeeship in respect of several adults with learning disabilities who reside at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgerhill Road, Moreton, Wirral.

I note that amongst the declarations made on the application form Ms Winstanley will have stated that she has discussed her appointment with other family members or next of kin and that they do not object to her appointment.

This is totally false. Family members and next of kin were NOT consulted prior to this action being taken and at least some of them most certainly DO object to her appointment. In fact, at least one of them wanted to apply to be an Appointee, but was told by the Council that they held Power of Attorney for her relative.

Background
Seventeen adults with severe learning disabilities living at the above three properties were systematically abused financially by Wirral Council’s Department of Adult Social Services between 1997 and 2006, amounting to £500,000. Six have died, and four have moved out, leaving seven in residence.

Thanks only to the persistence of a Departmental whistleblower the Council has very reluctantly been forced to pay back some of the money that was taken unlawfully by them. However, it has consistently tried to cover up its actions, and minimise the reimbursements.

Most of the tenants do not have capacity; they cannot read or write and some are blind. Nevertheless the Department ignored the elected members’ instructions that advocates be appointed to explain everything to the tenants and next of kin and assist them to make their claims for reimbursement. Instead they simply sent letters directly to the tenants, telling them there had been ‘a mistake’ and if they wanted to claim reimbursement they should sign the form and return it in the attached envelope. However the following paragraph told them that IF they claimed the money to which they were entitled, it would affect their Benefits!

In granting the Department of Adult Social Services and Wirral Council Appointeeship over these tenants the Department of Work and Pensions has unwittingly handed the abusers total control of the tenants and their finances, effectively silencing the concerns of their relatives and next-of-kin.

I trust you will agree that because of the background to this case Wirral Council, and in particular the Department of Adult Social Services, are unfit to hold these Appointeeships. If next-of-kin are unwilling or unable to act as Appointees then they should be permitted to appoint a suitable alternative, such as a solicitor or vicar in their place in order to safeguard their relatives.

I would be grateful if you would investigate this thoroughly in order to protect the claimants. .

Reproduced by kind permission of The Loose Cannon

Appointeeships granted to Wirral Borough Council

2010-03-11T19:34:00.003Z

The following Freedom of Information request has been made by Veridici

Can you please tell me

1. Has Wirral Borough Council, or any individual representing Wirral Borough Council, applied for Appointeeships in respect of residents of Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton, Wirral within the last twelve months.

2, How many individuals did the application cover?

3. Were any individuals at other addresses within Wirral included in the application?

4. Was the application successful, and the Appointeeship granted?

5. If the answer to 4 is in the affirmative, on what date was the Appointeeship granted?

6. Did the individual signing the application form declare that relatives of the individuals had been consulted about the application?

7. What are the penalties for making a false declaration?

Thank you

.

© copyright Veridici.
.

Claims for reimbursement

2010-03-11T19:08:00.008Z

A response to this FOI request has been posted at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/. Wirral Council's answers are in bold.

1. As of today's date, how many current tenants of Bermuda Road,Curlew Way, or Edgehill Road have personally submitted claims for reimbursement in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010?

One current resident has submitted a claim for reimbursement.

2. As of today's date, how many Appointees have submitted claims for reimbursement in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010, on behalf of tenants, former tenants, or deceased tenants of the above properties, together with names and job title of the Appointee if they are a Council employee?

One claim has been received from an Appointee.

3. As of today's date, how many Attorneys have submitted claims for reimbursement on behalf of tenants or former tenants of the above properties, in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010?

No claims have been received from Attorneys.

4. As of today's date, how many next of kin have submitted claims for reimbursement in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010, on behalf of former or deceased tenants of the above properties?

No claims have been received from next of kin.

5. How many next of kin have been contacted in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (4)?

There is no reference to next of kin in Cabinet resolution 256(4).

Veridici has asked the following supplementary questions:

1. How many carers and advocates of the seventeen original tenants and former tenants are their next-of-kin and/or relative?

2. How many relatives and/or next-of-kin of the tenants have the Council initiated contact with regarding the reimbursement?

3. On what date did the tenants and former tenants receive reimbursement letters from the Council?

4. On what date/s did the Council contact the relatives and/or next-of-kin of the tenants and former tenants about the reimbursement?

5. If the answer to the latter question is that the Council has not done so, why not?

6. On what date did the Council apply to the DWP to request a corporate Appointeeship over the affairs of the tenants?

7. How many tenants does that Appointeeship cover?

.

© copyright Veridici & Wirral Borough Council. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Wirral Council overcharging the vulnerable and shooting the messenger

2010-02-20T13:05:00.003Z

ConservativeHome / Local Government

Wirral Council, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition led by Cllr Steve Foulkes, a Labour councillor. They seem to adopt the same approach as Haringey towards whistle blowers who expose failings in caring for vulnerable residents.

Martin Morton, a council officer in Wirral, found that the Council was massively overcharging vulnerable residents, most of whom could not read or write. But rather than sort out the problem the Council tried to shut him up.

Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs column includes an item on it in their current issue:

A 10-year campaign by a whistleblower who uncovered serious overcharging of vulnerable people by Wirral Council's adult social services has ended with the authority admitting it should repay almost £250,000 in excess charges.

Sixteen people were found to have been overcharged up to £100 a week by social services under the supported living scheme, in which people are helped to live in their own homes.

The item concludes:

And has Morton received a herogram - or at least an apology? ot exactly. For continuing to insist on exposing the truth he was, he claims, bullied, driven out of his job and at one point hospitalised with stress. In 2008 he received a payoff of £45,000 and was asked to sign a gagging clause. Happily, he has chosen to ignore it.

Indeed he has. In an article for the Wirral Globe, he says:

The paragraph on the Globe website, which had me heading for the beta-blockers, read: "Cllr Foulkes said the affair had proved that anyone within the council with a complaint - 'or a whistleblower, as the term has been used in this case' - would have their grievances properly investigated and acted upon."

This reinforced the experience repeated over the last few years of living in a parallel universe where wrong is right, bad is good and lies are truth.

Had I not taken my serious concerns to the Audit Commission this matter would have been buried as deep as nuclear waste - proof positive of the catastrophic failure of Wirral Council to address my
concerns.

I chose to "go public" only because I witnessed lies, denials, and attempts at a smokescreen at several Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings.

What is particularly significant about Mr Morton's comments is his analysis that the culture on Wirral Council has not really changed. The problem is still there. Consequences for wrong doing "are still missing as the reinstatement of two officers implicated in the cover-up proves."

Mr Morton concludes:

The dangerous message Wirral Council gives the staff is this: "Play the game and no matter how incompetent you are we will reward you. Whistleblow about abuse - and we will destroy you.”

.

© copyright Harry Phibbs. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Two new FOI requests

2010-02-17T13:17:00.003Z

Veridici has made two Freedom of Information requests at What Do They Know, as follows:

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

Please provide the following information in accordance with the FOIA:

1. As of today's date, how many current tenants of Bermuda Road, Curlew Way, or Edgehill Road have personally submitted claims for reimbursement in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010?

2. As of today's date, how many Appointees have submitted claims for reimbursement in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010, on behalf of tenants, former tenants, or deceased tenants of the above properties, together with names and job title of the Appointee if they are a Council employee?

3. As of today's date, how many Attorneys have submitted claims for reimbursement on behalf of tenants or former tenants of the above properties, in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010?

4. As of today's date, how many next of kin have submitted claims for reimbursement in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (3)&(5) of 14 January 2010, on behalf of former or deceased tenants of the above properties?

5. How many next of kin have been contacted in accordance with Cabinet resolution 256 (4)?

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Veridici

_________________________________________

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

Please provide the following information in accordance with the FOIA:

1. The total number of adults for whom the Council, or its employees, hold DWP Appointeeships, broken down by area.

2. The name and job title of each individual Council employee, or details of each department, which holds DWP Appointeeships for the adults in question 1, together with the date or dates on which these Appointeeships were made.

Please note, I am not asking for any personal details of the adults in question 1.

Yours faithfully,

Veridici

_________________________________________

.

© copyright Veridici.

.

Does the abuser investigate the abuse?

2010-02-17T13:02:00.000Z

A series of emails from an individual who wishes to remain anonymous, using the name 'Anna', with permission to use them on this site. They have been arranged so that they read chronologically.

From: 'Anna'
To: safeguardingadultsunit@wirral.gov.uk
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:43:39 +0000
Subject: Financial abuse, and attempted defrauding, of people with learning disabilities

I would prefer to remain anonymous as I am responsible for a vulnerable adult who is indirectly affected by this case.

Wirral Borough Council has recently been compelled by the persistance of a whistleblower to pay back a quarter of a million pounds to fifteen people with severe learning disabilities, although the true figure they were unlawfully charged by Adult Social Services is nearer half a million pounds.
The next of kin of the people concerned only learned of the unlawful overcharge and reimbursements from the local newspapers. When they contacted DASS they were told that this is nothing to do with them. Their request for a meeting of all the next of kin with the Council has been denied. Now the Social Services department is claiming that IT holds Power of Attorney over their relatives' financial affiars, and the Public Guardian has been informed of these claims.

The fifteen vulnerable people who were financially abused by the Council live, or lived, in Moreton, Wirral.

There has been a massive cover-up by Council officials, and a handful of Councillors, over the last nine years, and it's still going on. Calls over the years for a full independent inquiry and/or a police investigation have been continually denied by the ruling parties.

Over the last weekend each of the vulnerable people affected by this received a letter from Wirral Council. It was couched in language that is almost unintelligible to the average citizen, let alone those who can neither read nor comprehend, and it would seem that no attempt was made by the Council to explain the contents to the individuals.

The letter contains dire warnings that claiming the refund may affect their benefits, which is an outright lie, as DWP has stated that the refund would be disregarded for a MINIMUM of 52 weeks, as it is the result of official error.

Due to two different calculating "errors", considerably less than half of what they were actually unlawfully charged is being offered, and the Council are now UNLAWFULLY charging them, retrospectively, under Fairer Charging, despite them not having been assessed under either that or the former Special Charging Policy.

The Director of Law has already ruled that it would be unlawful to make such a retrospective charge in the case of hundreds of people in exactly the same type of accommodation and situation who were charged NOTHING during the same period.

None of those affected have been offered any advocacy despite that having been part of the Council decision on this matter. The letter does say that advocacy is available, but only after they are told they should "sign the attached form" and return it in the stamped, addressed envelope if they wish to claim the reimbursement. Remember, none of them can read or write!

Wirral Council will stop at nothing to minimise its repayments, either by only paying back less than half of what it owes, or bullying vulnerable people they have aready abused financially into not claiming anything at all. That cannot be allowed to happen.

If this does not fall within your remit I would be grateful for any advice on who can do so.

All press reports and Council documents are accessible from the following website:
http://blowingthewhistleonareallyrottenborou.blogspot.com/

Thank you
'Anna'

[Veridici's note: thank you Anna for linking to the blog.]

From: Jones, David N. (Social Services QAU)
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: info
To: 'Anna'

Dear ‘Anna’

I write further to your e-mail to the Safeguarding Unit on 8 February which has been passed to me, as the Complaints Manager, to consider your points in accordance with our complaints process.

It is unfortunate that you wish to remain anonymous, however let me re-assure you that if you choose to shed your anonymity there will be no detrimental affect on the adult you are responsible for. It may also assist in adding perspective to what is a complex issue, and may allow the Director to address the issues in their appropriate context.

As you will be aware there has been a full investigation into the issues you raise, and it appears you are not satisfied with some of the outcomes from that investigation, and allege continuing malpractice. If you choose to remain anonymous it is difficult to address these concerns without context; as such it may be more appropriate for you to raise your concerns with the Audit Commission, the Local Government Ombudsman or the Care Quality Commission. The details for these organisations are readily available on the internet, but if you have any difficulty contacting them please let me know.

Please contact me if you wish to discuss further any of the points raised in my e-mail

Regards

David Jones
Complaints Manager
0151 666 5205

From: Anna
To: Jones, David N. (Social Services QAU)
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: info

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you for your letter. I contacted Safeguarding People as I am concerned at the ongoing organised and multiple abuse of vulnerable adults. It is totally inappropriate for Social Services Director or Complaints Manager to be involved in this. Does the abuser investigate the abuse?

I shall pursue this through higher channels.

'Anna'
.

© copyright 'Anna' . Reproduced with permission.
.

Ombudsman - Wirral Council "at fault"

2010-02-12T10:21:00.005Z

The text of a letter from the Local Government Ombudsman to Wirral Council has been made available to this site. Edited to protect the privacy of those concerned, it proposes that the Council send "a suitably senior officer" to apologise in person for the distress caused.

It states that the Ombudsman thinks the Council is at fault on two counts, thus causing "an injustice". Compensation for this has not yet been set, although it is understood that no compensation was sought by the complainant.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman thinks that the complainant "has been put to avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the complaint" The Ombudsman's original suggestion of £200 compensation was increased to £250 due to the Council's tardiness in dealing with the matter. Again it is emphasizes that the complainant did not seek any compensation for this element.

Wirral Council has twenty working days in which to accept the Ombudsman's proposals.
.

© copyright Veridici.
.

Wirral Council whistleblower Martin Morton: 'I'd do it all again, because it's the RIGHT thing to do'

2010-01-20T11:24:00.002Z

Wirral Globe - by Martin Morton

THE following is a response to the Globe report (see related links below) detailing the comments made by the Leader of the Council Steve Foulkes at Wirral Council’s cabinet meeting on January 14, when cabinet finally agreed that a group of people with learning disabilities had been systematically and unlawfully charged over a prolonged period of time.

Public interest in this case has been significant and I have received overwhelming support since I felt compelled to “blow my cover”.

It was reassuring to discover that a significant number of people on Wirral are not only concerned about standards in public life, but also the rights of disabled people.

I would like to thank all those who have offered their support and assistance during this ordeal, which enabled me to continue challenging the grave injustice perpetrated by the council.

My response is restricted to Wirral Council’s charging and whistleblowing policies, as I have been advised by Bill Norman (Director of Law, HR and Asset Management) that if I do not “observe strict confidentiality” regarding matters which led me to walk out of my job two years ago, he will be minded to advise cabinet to halt the long overdue investigation into my bullying allegations.

The paragraph on the Globe website, which had me heading for the beta-blockers, read: "Cllr Foulkes said the affair had proved that anyone within the council with a complaint - 'or a whistleblower, as the term has been used in this case' - would have their grievances properly investigated and acted upon."

This reinforced the experience repeated over the last few years of living in a parallel universe where wrong is right, bad is good and lies are truth.

Had I not taken my serious concerns to the Audit Commission this matter would have been buried as deep as nuclear waste - proof positive of the catastrophic failure of Wirral Council to address my concerns.

I chose to "go public" only because I witnessed lies, denials, and attempts at a smokescreen at several Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings.

At times the conduct of the most senior officers of Adult Social Services simply took my breath away, so brazen was their contempt for councillors, the public and most importantly those they are employed to serve.

I recall that when the current Director of Adult Social Services was initially in post he set out in a presentation his plan of action on how he intended to take the Department forward.

John Webb reminded us: "We are all public servants and ALL must do a good job."

He said he wanted to work in a place where all staff are: Able to perform well and innovate; Involved and listened to; Clear about what is expected of them; Treated fairly and consistently; Valued and respected; Supported.

Yet this was not my experience of working for DASS, or I would never have become a whistleblower.

And I suspect a large number of Adult Social Services staff who try to do their best for the vulnerable people of Wirral would share my experience.

Mr Webb's presentation reminded us that ACE is essential. ACE was an acronym for "Accountability" and "Expectations" he explained, but teased: "What's missing? Consequences!"

Consequences are still missing, as the reinstatement of two officers implicated in the cover-up proves.

According to an email on their return from a nine-month suspension on full pay, he told DASS staff he was "delighted" to have them back.

Cabinet's decision on January 14 brings Wirral Council into further disrepute.

The sorry saga began with a denial of any financial liability to the council in respect of unlawful charges made upon tenants of Bermuda Rd, Curlew Way and Edgehill Rd between October 1997 and June 2006.

After personally providing irrefutable evidence of a cover-up the council sought to persistently minimise its financial liability.

As the cover-up unravelled, the financial liability grew from Zero (September 2008) to £78,499.62 (November 2008), to £116,300 (September 2009), to £243,700 (November 2009), reducing to £241,000 (January 2010).

However, based on all the evidence and information I have obtained from DASS I believe the true figure for a full reimbursement is nearer £500K - as I have consistently maintained.

The council is now shamelessly minimising the reimbursement by retrospectively applying a different charging policy.

Even the Director of Law has ruled: "Legally the council is precluded from seeking to recover this money retrospectively; the money is lost."

It is simply unlawful to apply a charging policy that should have been in place to only this particular group of people.

Fairness and consistency demands that every person who received a service in a supported living setting should also be retrospectively charged.

Not only are Wirral Council persisting with this unlawful course of action, they are even trying to discourage these vulnerable people from claiming their full entitlement by putting obstacles in their way.

The threat of potential financial disadvantage to tenants making a claim against the council is both misleading and manipulative.

If the council truly supported disability rights it would appeal to the Department of Work and Pensions, as I have done, that vulnerable people should not be penalised for "official error" - the understatement of the year.

It is likely that a responsible decision maker within DWP would "disregard" the reimbursement and it would not adversely affect the tenants' benefit entitlement.

As I stated at an Audit and Risk Management meeting, I regret being a whistleblower, I regret losing my job and - most of all - I regret causing my loyal wife intolerable stress.

But I would do it all again - BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I implore Wirral Council to do the right thing by these vulnerable people, and pay back everything they owe, to enable me and my family to rebuild a life that was nearly destroyed.

How can we have claims of DASS management's involvement in financial abuse, cover-up, lost revenue of over £1M, bullying, incompetence, gross maladministration and malfeasance, but the only person to suffer any detriment was the one who exposed it?

The dangerous message Wirral Council gives the staff is this: "Play the game and no matter how incompetent you are we will reward you. Whistleblow about abuse - and we will destroy you.”

.

© copyright Martin Morton. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Comments on the above story published in the Wirral Globe

2010-01-20T11:23:00.009Z

glenn, moreton, says...
10:19am Wed 20 Jan 10

An absolutely amazing story of cover-ups at the highest level of social services - and STILL no punishment for the real perpetrators who keep what should be untenable positions after these revelations - and STILL the council refuses to fully re-imburse the victims - and STILL the director of law threatening Mr Morton if he discloses the full extent of the cover up to the public. Absolutely shocking and extremely worrying that vulnerable people are still being dealt with by the same people who have been ripping them off for YEARS.
...
The whistle-blower has been very courageous in pursuing this despite the detriment to his own health and financial security - ultimately losing his job over it while the real criminals get away not only with their over-charging but the bullying and intimidation they have subjected Mr Morton to. Disgraceful.
...
I encourage Mr Morton to continue to do the right thing and weed out the people who are infecting the social services department(and anyone else who may be implicated) - despite the director of law's outrageous threats.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
11:54am Wed 20 Jan 10

I wonder what would happen if Everyone who has ever witnessed Anything iffy going on within the council reported it. Could they REALLY destroy SO many people's lives - quietly ?
...
What really goes behind those closed doors ? How bad is it really ?

glenn, moreton, says...
1:16pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Thanks for the link Paul. It certainly seems like the reason for such vehemence to cover-up this issue is down to back room deals with care home contractors who perhaps are friends of council officers??? I wonder!! It wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps this could be a line of investigation for someone? The results could be startling.

Natasha Eubank, Oxton says...
1:25pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Only in a very distorted and disturbed mind could someone claim that the Whistleblowing system in Wirral Council actually works. This issue took 9 YEARS to be addressed (and despicably addressed by elected members) and only because it was referred to the Audit Commission. It cost one man his job, his health and his quality of life. It continues to be down-played by elected members and senior Council Officers - So I would like to make an open request to Councillor Steve Foulkes to respond via this web-page (Even if he doesn't read this site, I'm convinced some of the other Labour miscreants do - Perhaps they can draw his attention to this request?) and state how he feels the Whistleblowing system has been effective in this matter? I mean seriously Steve, what planet do you inhabit? Judging by the events during your tenure as Leader, you have demonstrated a spectacular contempt for Wirral Council and I speculate that you are not necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed, but to claim that the Whistleblowing system works........I mean seriously, it's not even intelligent 'spin' is it? It's just plain ill-advised and unbelievably dim.....Do us all a favour Steve and just go, go and attend your football matches and leave Local Authority administration to those who have a semblance of integrity and intelligence

Natasha Eubank, Oxton says...
1:38pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Apologies - "Judging by the events during your tenure as Leader, you have demonstrated a spectacular contempt for Wirral Council" - Clearly this should read "a spectacular contempt for Wirral Residents" - Perhaps I have contracted the same condition that affects Foulkes..........

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
3:54pm Wed 20 Jan 10

I have already asked the Queen to send a signal on our behalf as she is the only one in the Kingdom who might be allowed to practice common sense rather than PC.
Please forward this artical and comment to Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace. \writing Comments in the Globe is not enough it seems to me.
Perhaps Her Majesty will ask the Audit Commision to comment on this case?
I would love to be present at thwe audiance.
Come on now, copy and print then post.

hugo2008, Wirral says...
4:37pm Wed 20 Jan 10

If this appalling issue involving some of the least able to defend themselves in our community is not resolved before the next election, either National for MPs or indeed local for Councillors.
Please do not vote for any candidate who has been in power for any longer than 12 months. This will eradicate all the parasites who have invested Wirral with this terrible corruption. All of them have either known about it or should have known about it and failed miserably to do anything about the whole diabolical affair. As for the Executive Officers employed by the Council and paid by you and me, at every opportunity remind them and mention the sheer disgrace this has brought to Wirral.

Veridici, Wirral says...
7:20pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Ivorromaleyn, I suspect Her Majesty is constitutionally prevented from acting, but that does not stop us from doing so, does it?

Helen A, bromborough says...
7:27pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Excellent article Martin! You should be very proud of yourself as you are obviously a very intelligent and principled man who has put your qualities to good use. I wish the same could be said for the many adversaries you have single handedly defeated in your fight for justice. Laughable really to think that despite their best efforts, the full might and power of the Council has not managed to shut you up. The past few years cannot have been easy for you and I would like to thank you on behalf of the good, law abiding citizens of Wirral who applaud what you have done. Who knows, one day I may recognise you in the street and be able thank you personally. May you and your wife now reap the peace of mind and untroubled sleep that you so richly deserve; unlike, I hasten to add, all those who have tried to silence you, and whose burdens of guilt must secretly weigh very heavily indeed; especially at night

MX, Wirral says...
8:20pm Wed 20 Jan 10

It's quite obvious now why this took so long and so much effort to get in the public domain as dozens of people seem to be implicated in this debacle and they've all been covering each others backs.
At times, it appears that the only people who didn't know what was going on were the cleaning staff at Westminster House (no I take that back from what I hear the cleaning staff at Westminster House know a thing or two!).

glenn, moreton, says...
8:22pm Wed 20 Jan 10

veridici, was it not cllr pat williams who made a ruling against an independent inquiry after heeding one of the implicated's(john webb's) proclamation that there was no need for any investigation? Is this not malfeasance in public office? (She knew all about the over-charging and overlooked it because one of the accused told her to!)

Merseymouth, Wallasey says...
10:38pm Wed 20 Jan 10

If I stole a quarter (half?) a million pounds or committed fraud that netted the same, I would expect to go to jail.

Why are the police not investigating or am I missing something?

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
10:54pm Wed 20 Jan 10

MM the simple answer is that as an ordinairy citizen you would not be a part of a very intricately tangled web therefore much much easier to deal with without affecting anyone else along the line.

piggymalone, wirral says...
11:24pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Would it be pertinent of me to add
Bill Norman?

And on another point, why have the tories not spoken out on this matter.

lordthomas, birkenhead says...
12:44am Thu 21 Jan 10

as council tax payers,is there no way we can have bill norman sacked or removed from his post if we dont want him working for us.
He himself knows the answer but will not dare tell anyone will you bill I know you will be reading this.
we have other legal reps on the council they should speak up to advise us as to what moves we can take.
we can change things at the next election vote only for independants standing in your area.and any new independants who stand against this corrupt group of low life.
lets hope the inquiry ito bullying takes on board the threats bill norman has implied and make payment to martin for all his loss and all future loss of income

water1lily, spital says...
8:45am Thu 21 Jan 10

wirral dass is totally unfit for purpose i would like to see a petition for a public enquiry not just into the charging fiasco but the whole department.They are causing untold misery across wirral to the very people they are paid to help.They have placed my handcapped son with a known violent co-tenant who has assaulted him and his visitors.The case is with the ombudsman who they have fed a tissue of lies.wirral refuse to provide a budget so that my son can move from this dangerous situation I have been told not to e-mail the director johnwebb@wirral.gov.
uk as he doesn't want to know.Perhaps others would like to tell him what they think of his department

piggymalone, wirral says...
9:48am Thu 21 Jan 10

Would it be of any benefit to try and get this story in the national press?

Marleys Ghost, Wirral says...
11:33am Thu 21 Jan 10

It is an absolute disgrace that, even though these matters have been brought before the Audit and Risk Management Committee, the council continue to delay and minimise the total payment due to these people. This can only be causing Mr. Morton and his family further distress. If the council really are sorry for what they have done and want to make amends to the Morton family for what they have put them through, then I suggest that they start by paying back the full amount that is due to the tenants that they have financially abused.
This should never have been a fight for one man to be committed to; where are the independent advocates for those who have been abused? Why hasn't there been a full independent inquiry into these events? Surely the only way that Wirral can now minimise the damage to the reputation of the authority is for it to finally face the truth and do what is right. Failing that I hope top see them all voted out of office at the next election so that proper redress may be made by the new regime.

Leigh Marles, says...
11:33am Thu 21 Jan 10

We've removed some comments from this thread because they were making libellous and/or criminal allegations stated as fact.
Please keep your comments to personal opinions or dicussion without making personal attacks, otherwise we will be unfortunately forced to close the comments this thread.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Leigh Marles, Editor

minimad69, Birkenhead says...
11:34am Thu 21 Jan 10

Well Done Martin.
Another excellent example of how WBC and certain senior officers of the council, now think it is OK to operate on our behalf - with random, ill thought out belligerence.
They will only 'do the right thing' if forced to by the trheat of censure or removal from office (see also Wirral Libraries!).
When did they become so arrogant and useless - I have fond memories of when this administration achieved things years ago - now I wouldn't trust them to go to a shop for a pint of milk !!!!!

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
12:20pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Leigh, I have not stated anything as fact. I have reiterated information easily available elsewhere. I also question how the provision of names of anyone involved in this particular matter even vaguely resembles an allegation of any sort. Perhaps you could enlighten me ?
...
Dear readers, this is exactly how secrecy is perpetuated and the Globe has no choice but to obey laws in abundance to keep the press and us quiet. I suppose we can not blame them for fearing the consequences.
...
Fortunately this website is not the only resource on the internet should anyone care to google and quietly read about the people running this council.
...
As you can see it is best not to repeat what you know but knowledge is power - so they say. I do hope that someone is able to figure out a way to use this knowledge to stop blatant abuse of vulnerable people by those who are very well paid out of our own pockets to care for and protect them.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
12:22pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Oh actually, in reiterating information easily available elsewhere I may have breached copyright.
...
See, there is a law for everything and lots and lots to keep people quiet.
...
Hilarious...security words are : talk-even

MX, Wirral says...
12:51pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Clearly someone "in the know" is reading the posts then.
I don't see how a list of random names is libellous.However the situation simply invites speculation.
Have Care Quality Commission been involved?.
Is this the reason the Council got a redflag from Central Government for failings in their safeguarding of vulnerable adults?.
Is everything just going to carry on as if nothing has happened?.
So many questions,so few answers.
Full independent enquiry please.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
1:05pm Thu 21 Jan 10

The silence emanating from anyone at all who has authority over the council is deafening. (Is that libellous since it's true ? )

piggymalone, wirral says...
1:20pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Oooooops, do I hear the ruffling of feathers in the corridors of power.
More like the blind panic is making the feathers fly, and not before time.
I hope the guilty ones ( and they know who they are as well as we do) suffer twice as many sleepless nights as you put Martin Morton and his wife through and then prosecuted for malfeasance in public office when we hope you suffer many more sleepless nights in prison and dont think complaining to the Wirral Globe will save you from your deserved fate.

glenn, moreton, says...
1:30pm Thu 21 Jan 10

one of my comments regarding the lack of action over this by the council leader has been removed

Veridici, Wirral says...
1:37pm Thu 21 Jan 10

piggymalone, I hardly think you can castigate the Tories - after all, Simon Mountney was the only councillor of any colour to find this case shocking enough to devote a great many hours to it.

Regarding comments, I do find the censorship of non-libellous material rather worrying. Of course the Globe is a commercial organisation, so is open to what could be seen as blackmail from outside parties. However, as someone else has already pointed out, there are alternatives available to those who wish to make comments, if you Google 'Veridici' and 'blowingthewhistle'. Of course the usual laws on copyright, decency and libel are maintained there.

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says...
2:03pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Leigh, instead of deleting whole messages could you not just remove any names of individuals you believe have been libelled - allegedly?
....
And why has this newspaper not taken the initiative to start a campaign for an independent inquiry? You know how powerful the press can be - why are you not using it?
Leigh, instead of deleting whole messages could you not just remove any names of individuals you believe have been libelled - allegedly? .... And why has this newspaper not taken the initiative to start a campaign for an independent inquiry? You know how powerful the press can be - why are you not using it?

Veridici, Wirral says...
2:10pm Thu 21 Jan 10

glenn, no, it was the former Director of DASS, Kevin Miller, who told Pat Williams there was no need for an inquiry - of any sort.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
2:16pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Leigh, the Globe's opinion is clear. You've accepted the Council's admission that their own behaviour was "unlawful" in your reports. So the next phase will be attributing that to the persons involved, who currently prefer to remain anonymous - hopefully via a legal process.***Ok, it would be unwise to apply the 'criminal' or 'illegal' terms to named individuals, but many posters here are taking their lead from the Globe. Now that a partial admission of fault has been made, they feel fully vindicated in using these words to describe the collective behaviour resorted to over a ten year period. The Council are still claiming to have behaved in accordance with their policies (bit of a contradiction) and to have drawn a line under it. But this doesn't stack up, and in all likelihood, there is a risk that the unlawful activity will continue into the future and further matters may become concealed. Stay committed, don't waver, and stand shoulder to shoulder with Martin. You are in a very strong position and have them on the run.

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says...
2:32pm Thu 21 Jan 10

You're absolutely right to say the Council is 'on the run', PaulCa. Actually, I think 'panic mode' could well be nearer the truth.....DASS will not be helped by a ruling from the Local Government Ombudsman who appears to be nearing the conclusion of his investigation into my long-running complaint against DASS and its Directors, past and present
.....
All they needed to have done over the last ten years was to treat vulnerable people with respect, decency, compassion, and fairness, and all this would have been avoided.

piggymalone, wirral says...
2:44pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Veridici, I hope I did not castigate the tories as I am well awre of the actions taken by Cllr Mountney and Fraser. I am just a little surprised they have made no comments unless of course their attitude is that they do not want to make political gain out of this sorry mess. If that is the case, I think they shoulld say as much.Spiff, I did try and PM you but the system is not working. I dont know if there is any significane in that or it is just co-incidence.Veridici, I hope I did not castigate the tories as I am well awre of the actions taken by Cllr Mountney and Fraser. I am just a little surprised they have made no comments unless of course their attitude is that they do not want to make political gain out of this sorry mess. If that is the case, I think they shoulld say as much. Spiff, I did try and PM you but the system is not working. I dont know if there is any significane in that or it is just co-incidence.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
2:46pm Thu 21 Jan 10

It is my non-libellous and factually based opinion that blackmailing Mr Morton to keep quiet about how they treated him - in threatening to halt the investigation into his bullying - is absolutely disgusting....I also query its legality. I would like to know which law exactly prevents him from speaking out. I suspect the threat is not based on law but a well-founded fear of the truth getting out too quickly to too many people. ...But that is JUST my opinion.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...

2:48pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Piggy, I checked my messages and got the following:..."InformationPrivate messaging has been disabled on this board."...I invite you to draw your own conclusions as I could not possibly speculate.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
2:49pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I wonder............when does the bookburning start ?

Merseymouth, Wallasey says...
4:01pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Have a heart guys, a former editor was hauled over the coals many years ago for daring to question the Council re its subsidised private bar at the town hall.Threats of taking away advertising etc I understand, so it is not new. Fact!

Veridici, Wirral says...
4:19pm Thu 21 Jan 10

So, Merseymouth, is it your personal opinion that Wirral Council does not believe in free speech? ...It's my personal opinion that certain officers previously named on this board, are a bunch of shysters and should be brought to justice
....
It's my personal opinion that everyone who cares about this should contact their local councillor and explain to them just how badly you believe the Council is behaving....Perhaps you could also explain that it is your opinion that they are not worthy of licking Mr Morton's boots, let alone being voted back into office
....
it could just concenrate a few minds

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
4:19pm Thu 21 Jan 10

MM no one blames the editor, me least of all. Just having some non-libellous fun at the council's expense. Purely out of curiosity..have you read Fahrenheit 451 ? :)

piggymalone, wirral says...
4:54pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I googled "veridici" as his site might allow us to shame the individual lying, crooks involved and guess what came up
Cllr. Pat Williams, Oxton says... 1:12pm Tue 1 Dec 09
It would be appreciated if Verdici could provide me with the evidence to justify the assertion above. I have always sought to protect the vulnerable in our community and to act with integrity and will continue to do so.
In addition, although I am only too well aware of my own shortcomings, I can sleep in my bed with a clear conscience. Regarding the SAR; I made my opposition to it very clear to colleagues from the start.
As a loyal Liberal Democrat all that I agreed to was that the people of Wirral should be consulted on the proposals in the consultants report. Throughout and since the limited consultation process I have remained consistent in my opposition and what is more - been penalised for it. However, I remain a true Liberal Democrat."
I think I have, in one of the posts above, hoped that complicant parties suffer many more sleepless nights than Martin Morton and his wife have suffered, Cllr Williams, as you state above, you will not be suffering any sleepless nights, your conscience is clear as you have always sought to protect the vulnerable and act with integrity.
Hmmmmmmmm is that so!

Veridici, Wirral says...
5:11pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I'm delighted you found interesting material on Blowing the Whistle, piggymalone....I did indeed provide Pat Williams with the proof she requested, and I don't think she has posted again, although I may be wrong....By the by, your comment has been approved and published.

MX, Wirral says...
6:19pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I am heartened in this era of cynicism and political apathy that people are engaged in a righteous cause and are making alliances based not on political affiliations or self -interest but for justice,the common good and the protection of disabled people.Keep on making those connections.
.

© copyright the Authors. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Comments continued ...

2010-01-20T11:22:00.019Z

Wirral Integrity, Wirral says...
6:37pm Thu 21 Jan 10

The following is an excerpt of an email exchange between DASS Senior Officers regarding the overcharging. This transcript is freely available on the internet - The full version can be found at http://blowingthewhistleonareallyrottenborou.blogspot.com/search/label/%22Employee%20A%22 - Approximately 1/4 of the way down the page.

Once we go for a ‘reimbursement’ the cover’s blown. However we can’t bury our head in the sand for too much longer as the charging review group will start soon (it could be better to leave it to that group to consider?) In the meantime there is ‘unfairness’ in the system hence my advice to Xxxxx to consider the broader issues in AMT.

By the book:- there is no separate charging policy for this service, so it could be argued the domiciliary care charging policy must apply (and should have since ‘97), and that will mean a hefty reimbursement.

I would suggest we go to the Cabinet in the political down time (May-June) to get agreement for a ‘special charging policy’ for supported living as part of the budget strategy.... and that this policy maintains the status quo in financial terms but does so more fairly. I would also suggest the impact on individuals and groups in certain living situations are considered in more depth as I was left thinking the charging practice was very diverse and almost locally determined by individual staff (although I could be wrong there).

Wirral Integrity, Wirral says...
6:47pm Thu 21 Jan 10

To clear up any doubt, the above email exchange demonstrates irrefutably, that DASS senior officers were aware of the overcharging and yet sought to cover it up. They were suspended for 9 months on full pay (which for an Assistant Director equates to approx. £75,000) and subsequently reinstated. Disgusting. Furthermore, because DASS do not have the financial resources to meet the reimbursement, the money will have to come out of other department budgets. In a time were we are facing cuts in front-line services and redundancies, perhaps the two DASS Senior Officers should be the first to go. Thier combined salaries will certainly meet the reimbursement shortfall.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
6:51pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I wonder how much council tax we will all have to pay this year.

piggymalone, wirral says...
7:03pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Spiff...you can bet your bottom dollar it will be the capped maximum, think thats 5% increase

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
7:11pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Mmhmm.*nods*

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
7:13pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Excellent work, Wirral Integrity. That is just astounding. I'll check out that website link straight away. There will be a strong desire by Wirral council tax payers to see this sort of evidence laid out before them - just to satisfy any lingering doubts they have still had over the people they once placed their trust in.

MX, Wirral says...
7:55pm Thu 21 Jan 10

This gets worse or better (depending on your viewpoint).
But the above info isn't on some obscure website.It's on the Wirral Council's own website in a report written by Mr.Moreton!....and if you read on it gets worse.

MX, Wirral says...
8:03pm Thu 21 Jan 10

By the way I forgot to say Mr or Ms Integrity .Are you really telling me that those who perpertrated this are on £75K ? and they're not even the head honchoes?.Say it isn't so!.So Mr.Moreton is worth what?, 7-8 months of their salary and they carry on completely unaffected having spent what 9 months on full pay watching The Jeremy Kyle Show,Loose Women and Deal or No Deal ?.Somebody wake me up and tell me this is a bad dream.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
8:06pm Thu 21 Jan 10

MX wrote:I am heartened in this era of cynicism and political apathy that people are engaged in a righteous cause and are making alliances based not on political affiliations or self -interest but for justice,the common good and the protection of disabled people.Keep on making those connections.
MX I think you would probably find that most people do not suffer from political Apathy at all but from political Conditioning. Acceptance of it is variable....The last decade alone has seen so much legislation passed controlling the population that complaining about Anything regarding authority has become a stressful, exhausting, long-drawn out process that can and does destroy people's lives. In most cases it also appears to achieve very little as those in authority consider themselves untouchable and answerable to no-one....It can put off the strongest amongst us but it is the always the sick, the weak, the vulnerable that are the least well-equipped to enter into these processes and the authorities know it. It is much more than abusive but there is not a word I can think of that is strong enough to describe it right this minute though...."Complaints Procedure" - and "Whistleblowing" as we have seen - in this authority is now a contradiction in terms and this insidious creeping destructive culture has got to to change regardless of party politics. Some things are just plain unacceptable from anybody.

Wirral Integrity, Wirral says...

8:15pm Thu 21 Jan 10
MX - I believe that £75K represents the pro-rata of their 9 month suspension. The mind boggles. I believe that Director salary falls between £118K and £128K whilst our friend Maddox gets paid £132K for attending lunches.....

MX, Wirral says...
8:26pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Can't argue with that.....

Merseymouth, Wallasey says...
8:34pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Oi you lot, learn to recognise sarcasm when it is written.I still don't blame the editor though, he has masters and has to obey as well.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
8:46pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I thought of a word strong enough..."Sadistic". Is that libellous ? Nah....security word: keep-word. Greetings Big Brother....

standards, says...
9:25pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Who authorised the £45,000 of council tax money for Martin to leave and keep quiet? Are they still in post?

MX, Wirral says...
9:33pm Thu 21 Jan 10

A message to Merseymouth (MM - it couldn't be could it?)- " Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded".No that wasn't a Wirral Council spokesperson it was my old friend Fyodor Dostoeyevsky.I believe he wrote a book called Crime & Punishment!

lordthomas, birkenhead says...
9:41pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I said a guy called bill, would be reading this, no doubt this is the reason for items to be removed.ho ho security codeNICE-FEAR

piggymalone, wirral says...
10:44pm Thu 21 Jan 10

MX....MM, just a co-incidence, I know both.
Anyone got decent contacts with the national press?
Anyone know why the PM service is not working. Can MI5 hack into PM`s

Veridici, Wirral says...
10:51pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Standards, yes, the individuals who authorised the £45K payment are all still in their very, very senior posts.

piggymalone, wirral says...
12:16am Fri 22 Jan 10

Already this thread has turned into one of the most fascinating, informative debates ever on this site, certainly as long as I have been contributing. Equally the SAR debacle evoked anger from the residents of Wirral and even some ex pats. People power won the SAR battle and now I would urge everyone to join this battle which if won could end up winning the war. Yes, I use the words battle and war because it is probably the only way we can get justice and get rid of the R-soles dictating our lives

hugo2008, Wirral says...
11:40am Fri 22 Jan 10

Hey folks, I would like to comment on the fact that thanks to Leigh Marles, we have all been able to make comment on this terrible blight to the integrity of Wirral people. This is not just a scandal for Wirral Council and a number of the high ups within the DASS organisation, but its a National Disgrace in the abuse of power and authority that some individuals are able to carry out with what seems like impunity.
We need a completely different system of how Local Government is formed, controlled, and managed, and above all staffed, certainly at high level. Elections are looming soon, please make your vote count whatever your Political Belief on both a National level and I believe more importantly on a local level.
If you believe that your present Local representative, has not in fact carried out your wishes, then do not vote for them, if you think they are acting under Party Political pressure, then do not vote for that party.
Clear out the deadwood and parasites, we don't get many chances, use this one.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
3:10pm Fri 22 Jan 10

Just on the point of council tax - from todays Echo online:..."LIVERPOOL Council announced today it will freeze its share of city council tax.
At this morning’s executive board the ruling Liberal Democrat group announced they would make significant savings from areas like performance related pay for officers and cutting “bureaucracy”."
...
No excuse for Wirral Council NOT to follow suit. A couple of sackings for gross misconduct would save tens of thousands too
....
Just a thought :)

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
6:31pm Fri 22 Jan 10

The thing that angers me more than anything is the way the guilty senior officers - the people who clearly broke the law - have treated vulnerable people with contempt. They have picked their pockets in the first place, making them even more vulnerable, been found out and then attempted to cover it all up. The crime was compounded when they took to victimising Martin Morton who was brave enough to tell the Wirral Globe. It's also the severe breach of trust that they've committed on Wirral residents. We placed our faith in these senior officers to do a good, honest job, whilst spending our money wisely. I feel like I've been burgled, but the difference is a burglar enters our home and leaves with the spoils, without ever pretending that he's trustworthy. There is usually an honour amongst thieves, but there's no honour here, absolutely none. Just greed, lies, bullying and cowardice.

MX, Wirral says...
7:00pm Fri 22 Jan 10

Cowardice is right Paul.How easy to pick on a lone member of staff and it seems it involved most if not all of Adult Social Services senior management were involved.Then to compound the matter Councillors go and join in to the extent of exonerating one Social Services Manager and asking Bill Norman to send a letter to another one.Telling them what exactly? : "Congratulations on the cover-up but be careful with those emails".Councillors Davies,Teggin and Clarke have a lot to answer for.
As Paul said :cowardice.

Veridici, Wirral says...
7:58pm Fri 22 Jan 10

As I understand it the report by the 'independent investigator' did not clear Noone or Fowler
....
If the information I received is correct the recommendation was that they be dismissed
....
Cllrs Davies,Teggin and Clarke must explain how they turned that recommendation on its head.

Wirral Integrity, Wirral says...
9:51pm Fri 22 Jan 10

Veridici wrote:As I understand it the report by the 'independent investigator' did not clear Noone or Fowler. ... If the information I received is correct the recommendation was that they be dismissed. ... Cllrs Davies,Teggin and Clarke must explain how they turned that recommendation on its head.
Utterly, utterly disgusting. The more this sorry saga unfolds, the more appalled I am at the behaviour of those charged with the welfare of the Boroughs most vulnerable people. The fact that these two individuals could enjoy a 9 month suspension on full pay (on AD salary, this would be approximately £75,000 - An AD ANNUAL salary is approx. £100,000) and then return to their post as if nothing happened, is one of the most shocking travesties, I have ever heard. Now, because DASS deliberately underestimated their liability in respect of the overcharging, the reimbursement must be funded from other Council Departments. If the Elected members and Chief Executive had one single solitary ounce of moral fiber, they would delete these two miscreants posts and use the savings to cover the reimbursement. God knows, DASS seem to have enough Assistant Directors to spare. Instead, low-level workers who have no idea of what has been happening in DASS and who do a good job on behalf of Wirral residents will be given their P45's, just to keep these two morally bankrupt, diseased, creatures on their six-figure salaries.I hope you two are reading this and I hope that your actions come back to haunt you in the darkest hour of the night.
Rest assured, we are NOT going to forget this, this is NOT going to go away. To all those reading this, who have been shocked by this and yet are still apathetic, consider this, the two DASS Assistant Directors probably read these comments regularly and probably share a giggle or two about our vitriol, safe in the knowledge that they've been let off the hook.
What goes around, comes around.

MX, Wirral says...
10:23pm Fri 22 Jan 10

Conspiracy theorists oif the world unite.Why (suddenly,all of a sudden) have my last 5 p[osts disappeared?

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
10:43pm Fri 22 Jan 10

If this forthcoming bullying investigation is carried out honestly and above board, certain individuals should end up impaled back onto their hooks. From where I'm sitting, there's an admission of guilt and a plethora of evidence stacking up against the miscreants. In an ideal world, if Martin carefully and methodically submits every piece of damning information, it should follow on that the finger of blame picks out those responsible. The victimisation had its origins in Westminster House - and there should be a clear-out. That said, we're talking about an employer which has pulled all sorts of strokes to twist and distort the facts, and shrug off the blame. Don't be too surprised if they try to finesse their way out of it using empty words, leading to nowhere. They'll be wanting to shift some of the blame onto Martin - so watch out for the introduction of 'workplace dynamics', 'clash of personalities', 'egos', all nice little convenient lables with which to muddy the water and explain away 'bullying'.
The Chartered Institute of Personal Development (HR's professional body) is big on bullying at the moment (laughable, I know) and has done so-called research which finds that 'clash of personalities' is the biggest cause of workplace conflict. Well it would wouldn't it? But this kind of deliberate and targetted victimisation, accompanied by long, drawn out admission of guilt on the overcharging, can't be explained away so readily.

piggymalone, wirral says...
12:45am Sat 23 Jan 10

To be fair to the Globe (and a number of us have questioned the removal of certain posts) can I re-direct you to Veridicis site where Justin (News Editor)has written an explanation of the removal of some postshttp://blowingthewhistleonareallyrottenborou.blogspot.com/2010/01/comments-on-above-story-published-in_20.html#comments

hugo2008, Wirral says...
10:04am Sat 23 Jan 10

Note the date when this was submitted, yet still no action not even a word, I wonder why.
hugo2008, Wirral says... 3:14pm Sun 27 Sep 09
Where is our local MP Stephen Hesford, with his legal training he should get his teeth into this scandal, and sort out the corruption whithin WBC.After all come election time he may need to get back into legal practice, and with his contacts in the PCT he could have some inside information.

MX, Wirral says...
10:26am Sat 23 Jan 10

I was wrong about my deleted posts.Obviously a problem this end.And I agree with Justin,the Globe and everyone need to be careful about the postings.I think feelings are running high (and rightly so) because truth and justice appear to be alien concepts in this case.There are obviously many people out there who know the full story.It must be so frustrating for them to witness how the Council has managed to contain this for so long.Information is clearly being kept from us,what's in the public domain is scary enough.Can you imagine what's going on behind closed doors?.BTW I understand that both Stephen Hesford (and according to an earlier post Frank Field) know about this case.We're not in Purdah yet are we?.I was wrong about my deleted posts.Obviously a problem this end. And I agree with Justin,the Globe and everyone need to be careful about the postings. I think feelings are running high (and rightly so) because truth and justice appear to be alien concepts in this case.There are obviously many people out there who know the full story.It must be so frustrating for them to witness how the Council has managed to contain this for so long. Information is clearly being kept from us,what's in the public domain is scary enough.Can you imagine what's going on behind closed doors?. BTW I understand that both Stephen Hesford (and according to an earlier post Frank Field) know about this case. We're not in Purdah yet are we?.

piggymalone, wirral says...
11:28am Sat 23 Jan 10

If there are any local MP`s or councillors who are unaware of this case then they shouldnt be MP`s or councillors and in any case the chances of the not knowing are zero. So then, that begs the question "why has not one of them commented or seen to be doing something about this case?"I can probably understand Lib/Labs as it has been their ruling group that is implicated but I cannot understand the tories, is it because they do not want to make political gain over this case, I doubt that, so where are theyIf there are any local MP`s or councillors who are unaware of this case then they shouldnt be MP`s or councillors and in any case the chances of the not knowing are zero. So then, that begs the question "why has not one of them commented or seen to be doing something about this case?" I can probably understand Lib/Labs as it has been their ruling group that is implicated but I cannot understand the tories, is it because they do not want to make political gain over this case, I doubt that, so where are they

PaulCa, Wallasey says... 1
2:12pm Sat 23 Jan 10

MPs have had a difficult time recently. Those who intend to stand next time, being self-interested types, will be busy with election campaigns. Currently, with this issue still to play out, expect silence from Labour / Lib Dem, and eventual damage limitation. But with the tories, I think they'll sit on the fence for a bit longer before jumping and using it in their campaigns. Maybe public pressure could embarrass them and push them off early, or just help to keep the pressure on as the investigation into the bullying of Martin gets underway. All of which begs the question, with unlawful behaviour admitted, has anybody checked the expenses claims of the senior officers involved?MPs have had a difficult time recently. Those who intend to stand next time, being self-interested types, will be busy with election campaigns. Currently, with this issue still to play out, expect silence from Labour / Lib Dem, and eventual damage limitation. But with the tories, I think they'll sit on the fence for a bit longer before jumping and using it in their campaigns. Maybe public pressure could embarrass them and push them off early, or just help to keep the pressure on as the investigation into the bullying of Martin gets underway. All of which begs the question, with unlawful behaviour admitted, has anybody checked the expenses claims of the senior officers involved?

Wirral Integrity, Wirral says...
1:12pm Sat 23 Jan 10

I am rather bemused at the ostensibly abritrary deletion of comments. As an example, I posted details of senior officer salary levels - This information is freely available - The following link is from the taxpayers alliance website showing the CEx and Director salary grades http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/council_spending_uncovered_4_town_hall_rich_list_2008.pdf All other council officer grades are publicly accessible through a FOIA request. I note from the excellent website www.areallyrottenborough.blogspot.com that the Globe Editor has stated that some user-posted comments have been the subject of complaints. I would imagine that these complaints have emanated from those very individuals implicated in this matter - I find it obscene that these individuals are demanding the same civil and legal rights that they were unwilling to afford to the victims of the overcharging.

MX, Wirral says...
1:15pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Print the complaints

Wirral Integrity, Wirral says...
1:20pm Sat 23 Jan 10

If the Globe are unwilling to print the complaints, then perhaps they could be requested as part of an FOIA request (suitably redacted to comply with the DPA of course, we would hate to infringe on the civil liberties of senior council officers.......)

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says...
4:10pm Sat 23 Jan 10

PaulCa, I have been present at both Council and Audit & Risk Management meetings over the last two years when this has been discussed
.....
I have been appalled by the words, attitudes, and actions of every single Labour or LibDem Councillor who sat on those Committees.....I actually 'hi-jacked' one of the ARMC meetings to contradict false information that was being given to the Committee by Maura Noone
.....
As I have previously stated on this board, I provided information of the financial abuse of vulnerable adults to, among others, Pat Williams, Simon Holbrook, Stu Kelly, Paula Southwood, Moira McLaughlan, John Salter, Steve Foulkes, and Simon Mountney
.....
Guess how many of them wanted more information on my allegations, and took up the cudgel?
....
ONE! And that one was Simon Mountney, and I have to say that he has done so at great personal cost in terms of time, energy, and headaches from banging his head against the Council's brick wall for two years.
....
At the meetings I mentioned earlier I witnessed Simon Mountney trying desperately to get the Labour/LibDem councillors to act with even a modicum of common decency, but the meetings were chaired by a LibDem, Paula Southwood, who consistenly helped the ruling group to ride rough-shod over anything the Tories asked for.
....
I was present when Martin Morton made his impassioned statement regarding the treatment he had received at the hands of Council Officers
.....
Jeff Green then demanded a full, external, public inquiry, or a police investigation. Simon Holbrook rejected both, and called for an inquiry into the bullying allegations - an inquiry which has yet to begin four months later!
...
I am not particularly a political animal, and I have said all along that this should not be a political issue, but it has been made one by the ruling parties. Please reserve your wrath for those who are unable or unwilling to vote with their conscience because of the party Whips. The political system we have at the moment will not allow anyone to break ranks without sanction
.....
The system has to change before anything else will.

piggymalone, wirral says...
6:16pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Couldnt agree more with Loose Cannon. The political system as described is undemocratic and corrupt but the only way we, the public, can do anything about the system is to use our votes to effectively get rid of party politics. I have for a long time argued the point that at least independent candidates are free to vote with their consciences (and hopefully with the majority of the electorates wishes) without being told what to do by party whips. I would urge every voter to very seriously consider the consequences of voting for a political party. This is not the only case in Wirral Councils recent history that has highlighted the corruption within.Couldnt agree more with Loose Cannon. The political system as described is undemocratic and corrupt but the only way we, the public, can do anything about the system is to use our votes to effectively get rid of party politics. I have for a long time argued the point that at least independent candidates are free to vote with their consciences (and hopefully with the majority of the electorates wishes) without being told what to do by party whips. I would urge every voter to very seriously consider the consequences of voting for a political party. This is not the only case in Wirral Councils recent history that has highlighted the corruption within.

Jeff Green, says...
7:34pm Sat 23 Jan 10
I continue to have documents I have requested from senior Council Officers regarding this case denied to me.Please be assured that we are determined to get to the bottom of what I believe to be a most shameful case. We have called for a full and independent inquiry and and if we take control of the Council in May that is what we will have.

Cllr Chris Blakeley, Moreton says...
7:50pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Can't be any clearer than that!

piggymalone, wirral says...
8:15pm Sat 23 Jan 10
Jeff, you may get some of the documents you require direct from Martin Morton and any more incriminating ones have probably shredded by now. Thanks to you and Chris for commenting.

piggymalone, wirral says...
8:40pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Jeff, just another point. If you did take overall control of the council next May and certain parties are castigated by an independent enqiury, would you then be in a position to fire the implicated officers (and indeed would you) and then what action could be taken against councillors who were proved to be complicant in the affair.

hugo2008, Wirral says...
9:02pm Sat 23 Jan 10
Jeff Green and Chris Blakeley, Put a statement in the party manifest for the next election that a complete enquiry into the Martin Morton issue will be made. The findings will be made fully public with no Exceptions. And if any guilty parties inside Council or outside Council are found they will be suitably dealt with or punished.This is not a witch hunt, its Justice.Do this and you will be garanteed to control Council on behalf of the vast majority of Wirral Population.

Veridici, Wirral says...
9:11pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Those are very pertinent questions, piggymalone, and I eagerly await Jeff's answer, too..I also have a question for Jeff; if the Conservatives do take control of the Council will they overturn Bill Norman's perverse ruling that one set of vulnerable people cannot be assessed retrospectively, and another set can be, thus ensuring that the sixteen abused or their estates will receive FULL reimbursement.
.
Whilst I largely agree with your stated aims of independent Councillors and MPs, piggymalone, voting for one may be counter-productive in this case, in view of Jeff's statement.
.
However, we shouldn't have to consider voting along political lines simply to ensure we get a genuinely independent inqiry, should we?

hugo2008, Wirral says...
10:04pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Deafening Silence has been obvious from Local Councillors, and Wirral Mps.Yet some Councillors are very willing to change the topic of conversation or debate when asked about the Martin Morton incident of Whistle Blowing.As far as the MPs on Wirral are concerned two down and two to go, we could be getting closer to a better system for accountability, Hope So.

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
10:35pm Sat 23 Jan 10

I agree with Loose Cannon. While party political whips control our elected representatives our (democracy) is suspect. I am a new comer to this area and am free of any loyalty to any of the parties involved. Today we have the example of the suppression of the report on child abuse by children suppressed by the Doncaster Council. Then look at Torbay where Council employees are subject to up to 20% pay cuts. The only people exempt are of course the Council executives.There is something very wrong with this democracy. I suggest NEVER EVER voting for a candidate subject to Party whip control. THEN the politicians will listen.To be fair, it is not all the politicians fault.I am now nearly eighty and have watched a nation battered by war vote for decency and a welfare state. THEN we got spoilt and refused to vote for honest candidates who told us hard truth. I remember Churchill promising blood sweat and tears and we backed him. Our children vote for the candidates who lie in order to tell us what we want to hear. (Sorry it’s called Spin now) even lies have been adjusted to be palatable. Don’t vote for party politicians even if that is in some cases unfair. We need a new kind of politics and you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.AFTER the election we will learn facts that have been suppressed and they will be selectively fed to us by the victorious party. Clean up politics and refuse to vote in an undemocratic election fiddle. Vote Independent and WATCH him or HER.

glenn, moreton, says...
10:55pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Wise words Ivor - someone who has actually seen it all before. We need more like you who have the voice of experience from years of seeing politicians come and go.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
11:06pm Sat 23 Jan 10

86 comments now. "Former Council Leader Begins 5 Year Term in Walton" wouldn't get that much interest.

ghawkins, wirral says...
11:27pm Sat 23 Jan 10

If Doncaster Social Services can be effectively taken over and run via Central Government for its mishaps and incompetence, then something needs to happen here. I would also like to remind people of the murder of Stephen Croft two years ago. The boy who did it was supposed to be in the care of Wirral Social Services - Steve Maddox promised that an serious case review would take place ... have we ever heard anything more?Questions need answering, and I would take this to Minister for Local Government/Communities, as afterall this is a Labour council, whilst I think the national press might be interested; given the current climate.

ghawkins, wirral says...
11:37pm Sat 23 Jan 10

Ah hang on, I think I've found the story"Assessments of Smith and his family were poor and not even kept in a file. Opportunities to assess risk were missed because Wirral Youth Offending Service knew nothing about a string of offences he committed while housed in Huddersfield. Despite a history of neglect, contact with Smith's family was increased in Wirral during summer and autumn 2007 - leading to an increase in aggression.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1089570/Boy-13-beat-man-death-threw-bonfire-catalogue-care-failings.html#ixzz0dTvdzswt

torswood, prenton says...
6:39am Sun 24 Jan 10

Clearly we all owe Mr Morton a great debt of gratitude.The exposure of institutional "corruption" does not bode well for the other council services or the powers that are who operate them.

hugo2008, Wirral says...
9:35am Sun 24 Jan 10

Mr Marles, Just out of interest what has been the longest running or most contributed too theme that this excellent facilitiy has been subject too.
This one seems to be headed towards the 100 mark, fair indication of how people feel I would guess.

MX, Wirral says...
9:35am Sun 24 Jan 10

Much respect to Ivor.The local council is a microcosm of the national one. Smoke (screen) and mirrors in a cesspit of spin is their MO.
It's gratifying to see so many people engaged in this debate,standing up,speaking out and saying "ENOUGH!" . We owe it to Ivor and his generation.
There was a time (I can dimly remember) where there were standards in public life and people did the "honourable thing" or indeed "the right thing" as it's been termed.
No more it would seem. I have seen the future!, tinpot Alastair Campbells running the show.
My.my it's Machiavelli made flesh.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
10:19am Sun 24 Jan 10

But to call it Machiavellian is to imply we're dealing with a sophisticated level of intelligence. This bullying investigation may prove how bungling and incompetent they have been - one way or the other.

But to call it Machiavellian is to imply we're dealing with a sophisticated level of intelligence. This bullying investigation may prove how bungling and incompetent they have been - one way or the other.

JD1986, says...
5:21pm Sun 24 Jan 10

Martin for PM!

lordthomas, birkenhead says...
11:49pm Sun 24 Jan 10

To use a now well known comment used by all parties in westminsterWIRRAL COUNCIL "IS NOT FIT FOR PORPOSE"
Who chooses the security codes this one "ROOF- FULL lol

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
11:56pm Sun 24 Jan 10

Wirral Council used to have a manager, a Mr Dolphin - who wasn't fit for porpoise.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
10:10am Mon 25 Jan 10

hugo2008 wrote:Mr Marles, Just out of interest what has been the longest running or most contributed too theme that this excellent facilitiy has been subject too.This one seems to be headed towards the 100 mark, fair indication of how people feel I would guess.Cheers to Leigh Marles and the Globe.I fully expect this comment to be deleted but will post it anyway. Perhaps someone will see it for a few minutes and be aware of what is going on here if they are not already.
...
Hugo the number of comments actually passed 100 days ago. Certain so-called "libellous" posts where deleted and this section continue to be censored.
...
I am disgusted at the globe's complicity in suppression of information freely available to the public. If only they knew where to look - or if only someone was allowed to tell them.
...
Pass Leigh Marles and his team another flamethrower the one used here must be almost out of fuel by now.
...
Evidently the truth will not out - not here. The bookburning is well and truly under way. ...
Shame on you wirral globe.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
11:15am Mon 25 Jan 10

I'm actually quite surprised that the story has been given this much publicity. Often in these situations, when pressured, a local rag will back down and withdraw to its primary role as an 'ad-sheet'. The editor and his staff should be congratulated, because ultimately if someone moves against them by withdrawing advertising revenue, careers can be damaged and jobs lost. The worlds of business and local democracy are intertwined. Editorial independence can suffer as a result. Debate and transparency is a threat to the villains at the centre of this affair. Having integrity and standards, and giving the local public an opportunity to voice their opinions will make you a target, as sure as night follows day. Martin Morton knows this better than anyone.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
11:27am Mon 25 Jan 10

PaulCa - yup you're right. Freedom of The Press is another thing that has become a contradiction in terms.
...
The abuse of countless vulnerable people (and children) by authorities well paid to care for and protect them actually matters very little in the grand scheme of things.
...
The money wins out every time. Live and learn eh.

Leigh Marles, says...
3:58pm Mon 25 Jan 10

What's "going on here" Spiffy, is that without the Globe breaking this story in the first place and following up its many twists and turns since, you wouldn't have had a clue about it.The stories and Martin's personal article remain untouched - it's libellous comments that I delete, as I'm legally responsible for this website.Sorry and all that.

hugo2008, Wirral says...
6:36pm Mon 25 Jan 10

Fair comment Leigh, most of us do have respect for the Globe, and You are quite right to defend your position in this all to often litigious world we live in.Feelings do run high when mere mortals like us see the rich and influential get away with absolute murder, if its any consolation the other free paper on Wirral, are very afraid of allowing the rank and file from expressing views so readily as the Globe.Keep up the good work, even if I do not always agree with the Globe, I do have an opportunity to say so.Spiffy, do the right thing as MX Wirral suggests and apologise, Leigh Marles may just have saved your bacon.

MX, Wirral says...
7:02pm Mon 25 Jan 10

How appropriate that The Globe editor should have the 100th post!.He's absolutely right about the Globe,we wouldn't have known any of it,let alone the half of it.I think some of the controversial comments/revelations are borne of frustration rather than malice. I'm certain I didn't ask Spiffy to apologise though (apologies if I did!).It's clear that a lot of people know the real story and it's a now a case of making the connections. Surely there can be no hiding place as this scandal continues to unravel.Picking up on what Leigh Marles has written I anticipate plenty more "twists and turns" in this saga.Fasten your seat belts.

piggymalone, wirral says...
7:48pm Mon 25 Jan 10

I very much respect Spiffys contributions to this site and would hate this saga to get out of hand and cause the loss of a valuable contributor.
Leigh and Justin are very approachable guys and it may be that if Spiffy had an off the record conversation with them they may be able to understand her point of view and indeed visa versa. MX is undoubtedly right that the removed comments (including some of mine) and indeed borne out of frustration caused by....well you know who

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
8:04pm Mon 25 Jan 10

Fairplay Leigh I've been a brat. I will apologise - without prompting - for the entire post that suggests the globe and its named team is complicit in suppressing information. On reflection "complicit" really is not the appropriate word and was unfair. Please, feel free to delete the entire post.
...
It was borne of irrititation at the random deleting of comments in the name of "libel" where none was immediately evident and query did not merit a detailed response.
...
It was also borne of a well deserved contempt and disgust of this council and previous documented abuses of the vulnerable. No names mentioned this time.
...
I do still query why the merest mention of a name - even in the absence of any allegation - would warrant deletion on libel grounds but concede that your liability for such is greater than mine under the circumstances.
...
I also suspect that for you to explain in any further detail may in itself prove libellous. What a tangled web these politicians weave and we are both caught in it albeit on different levels..
..
I will try to behave in future.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
9:51am Tue 26 Jan 10

Here's a statement from Wirral Council's recent People Stategy: "The People Strategy enables us to drive improvements through people which will enable us to deliver strategic objectives locally and ensure that we embrace key national agenda and deliver on these priorities and targets. With a clear strategy in place it will be easier to focus resources on those people management interventions that will really make a difference to performance within the Council. This will also help to improve the consistency of people management practices and ensure that all people management activities complement each other."
They've admitted to breaking the law. We know we're dealing with crooks and I'm assuming that a good example of 'people management intervention' would be the issuing of threatening edicts to staff, telling them not to approach the press.... or else.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
10:04am Tue 26 Jan 10

And further down....."the People Strategy fosters effective team building through involving others and works towards creating a no-blame environment......."security code "pain-over"

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
11:06am Tue 26 Jan 10

PaulCa wrote:And further down....."the People Strategy fosters effective team building through involving others and works towards creating a no-blame environment......."security code "pain-over"
I see, if one is not to blame then no one is to blame. A covering of one's collective a*ses, so to speak....You couldn't make it up.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
11:32am Tue 26 Jan 10

Spot on Spiffy. No blame, no pain. The only a*se not covered was Martin's.

MX, Wirral says...
1:13pm Tue 26 Jan 10

All I can read PaulCa is blah,blah,blah.Strategies - tick,Policies - tick, Procedures -tick.People Strategy! - you couldn't make it up .They don't want thinking,feeling people they want automatons where you press a button for the required answer.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
1:29pm Tue 26 Jan 10

MX - The "People Strategy" is an avalanche of two-word soundbites. I know it's fashionable to cower behind jargon, but Wirral appear to rely on a brimming bucket of verbal diarrhoea:
THEMED TARGETS,
GUIDING PRINCIPLES,
SHARED LEARNING,
STRONG FOCUS,
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT,
KEY DRIVERS,
KEY THEMES,
KEY TARGETS,
KEY COMPONENTS,
KEY MECHANISMS,
KEY OBJECTIVES,
STRATEGIC PATHWAY,
EMBRACING DIVERSITY,
PRIORITY OUTCOMES,
MEASURABLE OUTCOMES,
FUNDAMENTAL BEDROCK,
IMPROVED CLARITY,
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS,
ORGANISATIONAL COMPETENCIES,
CORPORATE COMPETENCIES,
CORPORATE BEHAVIOURS,
CORE PROCESSES,
EMBRACE CHANGE,
EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP,
COLLABORATIVE WORKING,
DELIVERABLES IDENTIFIED,
BALANCE INITIATIVES,
SUPPORTING TOOLKITS.
If you wrote all these down on pieces of paper, gathered them up and threw them like confetti, it wouldn't matter where they landed. You would still end up with an 'effective' PEOPLE STRATEGY.

.

© copyright the Authors. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Learning disabled people faced excessive residential fees

2010-01-18T17:46:00.000Z

Community Care - by Vern Pitt

Wirral Council is to pay a group of learning disabled people more than £241,000 after overcharging them for several years for residential services, vindicating the complaints of a whistleblower in 2008.

The service users may have to claim back their overpayment from Wirral in order to protect their benefits entitlement, said a report to the council's cabinet last week.

Between July 2000 and April 2003 residents in three residential settings were subject to charges that were not in line with the council's fees policy. After the government's fairer charging guidance was introduced in April 2003, the charges became unlawful but Wirral did not change its policy until February 2006.

Of the 16 people affected, three have since died and five have moved out of the premises concerned. Service users are being advised to approach advocacy services to help them make a decision on their claim.

A spokesperson said: "It would be highly inappropriate for Wirral Council to advise the people concerned in this matter whether they should pursue a claim.

"The information that people need to help them make a choice will be offered in targeted formats and delivered in whatever way is appropriate to an individual's needs."

It is not clear where the money will come from; £68,000 had been set aside to cover the repayment but more than £173,000 will have to be found from other council budgets because the adults' services department is unable to meet the one-off cost.

In 2008, council employee Martin Morton blew the whistle by informing managers of the overcharging. He was later forced to leave the council.

The council has apologised to Morton unreservedly, although no misconduct was found by the investigation into his complaint.

.

© copyright Council Care. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Wirral Council agrees to pay £244,000 back to vulnerable adults it overcharged for years, vindicating a 'whistleblower'

2010-01-15T17:35:00.001Z

15th January 2010

Wirral Globe by Justin Dunn »

Wirral Council finally admitted owing a quarter of a million pounds to vulnerable adults last night.

In what council leader Steve Foulkes described as "not our finest episode", the authority systematically overcharged at least sixteen people for years on end.

The overcharging only came to light when a whistleblower repeatedly tried to highlight them with his bosses at Adult Social Services.

The whistleblower, Martin Morton, was eventually paid £45,000 to leave the service and keep quiet. Instead, in November 2008, he approached the Globe and we helped him tell his story.

The result was last night's meeting of the council's ruling cabinet committee, where it was agreed to repay almost a quarter of a million pounds to the sixteen adults who had been overcharged.

Mr Morton maintains the amount is nearer to £500,000 and involves more than just sixteen people.

As the cabinet prepared to approve the process of allowing people to reclaim the money, council leader Steve Foulkes declared: "This was clearly not our finest episode."

He said it was "regrettable" that anybody may have been "damaged" by the long-running saga and added: "I offer my personal apologies to those involved."

The committee read from a report that told how elderly and vulnerable people living in homes at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, were systematically overcharged by Adult Social Services for seven years.

Mr Morton had raised his concerns several times with his managers, but claims he was ignored, bullied and driven out of his job.

Days after our exclusive report in November 2008, two senior officers were suspended but, after disciplinary hearings, were later reinstated.

The stress of blowing the whistle drove Mr Martin to the verge of a nervous breakdown and he was subsequently hospitalised.

He was given a £45,000 pay-off from the council to leave his job in social services.

An internal audit to examine Mr Martin's claims was eventually ordered and reported its findings in September of last year.

It ruled that people living in the three homes under a so-called "special charging policy" had been overcharged and that the policy was unlawful.

The town hall has set aside £68,000 to repay the residents - but the total sum needed is £244,000.

The report to last night's meeting made it clear the authority is not going to just hand over a cheque for the money it owes.

Instead, the council's director of law, Bill Norman, recommended that officers write to individuals "advising" them to make a claim against the authority.

He said residents on means-tested benefits may encounter unexpected difficulties if they suddenly come into a substantial sum of money.

He wrote in the report: "There is the potential impact upon each affected individual’s current financial position.

"The impact of the reimbursement of a significant sum of money, when combined with any capital resources an individual may already have, may have wider implications that may not be initially appreciated by those in receipt of means-tested benefits.

"The regulations for such benefits are framed in such a way as to preclude individuals or those acting on their behalf from taking such actions, in any way, which may be regarded as an evasion of benefit regulations."

Mr Norman recommended that individuals will need to be notified that they may have a claim against the council in respect of the "deemed overpayment".

"They will need to consider their positions, and if they believe they have a legitimate entitlement, make a claim for reimbursement against the council.

"It would be advisable, and indeed highly desirable, that each individual be given access to independent advice in formulating such a view and potential claim."

He suggested the council should steer tenants with a potential claim towards the Wirral Advocacy Service, a charity which offers free legal advice.

Officers will now write to individuals and their carers and advocates informing them of this, and inviting them to seek appropriate advice "so as to ensure they make an informed decision if they choose to submit a claim".

Cllr Foulkes said the affair had proved that anyone within the council with a complaint - "or a whistleblower, as the term has been used in this case" - would have their grievances properly investigated and acted upon.

Martin Morton's blistering response to that will appear in his own words in next week's print edition of the Globe, and later online.

.

© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Comments on the above story, published in Wirral Globe

2010-01-15T17:30:00.008Z

djrimmer, Wallasey says...
12:00pm Fri 15 Jan 10

"Clearly, not our finest hour" and it still isnt, forcing these people into having to "claim" the money back. Why didnt you and your fellow councillors over rule Norman and just graciuosly pay the money back without the trauma of having to approach you......the public know what you are up to....hoping that some of them will not be bothered....shameful

kmka, prenton says...
12:20pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Just when you thought that this council couldn't stoop any lower, along comes this. Not satisied with trying to sell off libraries, swimming pools and schools, we now find that they have been knowingly ripping off vulnerable adults. What next? Stealing sweets from children? Selling lead from church rooves?It's about time all members of this council did the decent thing and resign.

Natasha Eubank, Oxton says...
12:22pm Fri 15 Jan 10

There are a series of questions that need to be asked:

The Council, through its records, will be aware of the individuals that this overcharging has affected - Why then are the victims required to make a 'claim'?

The Council claims that the reimbursement of this money would negatively affect the victims entitlement to state benefit - What representations has the Council made to the DWP, to advise them that this situation has resulted out of the Councils inability to provide appropriate care and support for vulnerable people and therefore the victims of this overcharging should not be unfairly penalised for the Councils ineptitude?

Finally, Councillor Foulkes has stated that this 'affair had proved that anyone within the council with a complaint - "or a whistleblower, as the term has been used in this case" - would have their grievances properly investigated and acted upon'. I assure you that there are very few people working for the Council who hold any faith whatsoever in the Wirrals Whistleblowing Policy after the treatment meted out to Mr. Morton. This man endured bullying from Directors and Assistant Directors of Adult Social Services and Elected Members as a result of his disclosure. Furthermore, it took 9 YEARS(!) before this matter finally received the attention it deserved and even then, has been subsequently minimised and distorted by senior officers and members, so yes Councillor Foulkes, the Whistleblowing system in Wirral Council is a real shining beacon of Equity and Transparency isn't it?

If anyone in the Council had any faith in the Whistleblowing policy, you would have been ripped seven ways from Sunday over WBC's inability to prevent financial abuse in one particular supported accommodation provider.

So, my final question is directed solely to Councillor Foulkes - How can you sleep at night?

Casey Jones 01, Wirral City says...
12:34pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Totally agree with your sentiments Natasha - another question would be, how many of these vulnerable service users have died in the meantime and what happens to the money that WBC has stolen from them? Morbid question, I know - but it may be too late to "reimburse" some of these victims and why should WBC benefit in those cases?

piggymalone, wirral says...
1:44pm Fri 15 Jan 10

As I understand it, Casey, 3 of the affected residents have subsequently passed away and presumably the reason no councillor has challenged Normans recommendation to force the people in question to have to apply to the council for the refund is in the hope that they do or cannot apply, cynical maybe but look at the continuing treatment of Martin Morton

Message to Leig or Justin;

How about running internet replies to this story alongside Mr Mortons reply next week to show the 100% public support for him. This will also show councillors the shear bad taste in the mouths of the electorate over this affair

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
2:01pm Fri 15 Jan 10

How about the Globe organising a petition against victims of this fraud having to claim back their own money and demanding it is repaid automatically using councils own accounts records to do so ?
...
How about the globe organising an interview with a senior SS officer and get the official position on any repayments to benefit recipients ? That would save every single claimant having to find out for themselves, some may not be capable of doing so without a great deal of assistance that they may feel either too proud or unable to ask for.
...
How about the Globe organising an online petition signed en masse selectively worded to precisely express the populations of Wirrals deep revulsion at the despicable treatment of Mr Morton and all the victims of fraud ?
...
How about Mr Morton himself and a mass gathering of supporters marching to the town hall and handing over these petitions directly to Foulkes himself - with local press present. ?
...
SHAME THE B*S**RD !

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
2:03pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Oh and since the amount owed is almost that which they are trying to scam off us all for hot dinners and butties we could all throw mouldy bread at him too :)

hugo2008, Wirral says...
2:06pm Fri 15 Jan 10

It goes without question that somebody in a high place needs to answer some important questions, What is Steve Maddox going to do with the people resposible for this outrageous treatment of those in the least possible circumstances to fend for themselves. And what is the attitude of our so highly paid MPs in Wirral to this complete missuse of authority by Concil Employees and Social Services.
I urge folk to remember all this when MPs come calling for your support. Likewise so called elected Councilors who have been fully aware of the circumstances for some considerable time.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
2:16pm Fri 15 Jan 10

"I urge folk to remember all this when MPs come calling for your support. Likewise so called elected Councilors who have been fully aware of the circumstances for some considerable time."
...
Good point Hugo. I'd like to see the Globe investigating and printing a list of all the names of everyone involved at any point in this massive cover-up. No allegations just names.
...
If those persons then feel the need to explain their involvement then fair enough. I doubt many people would be happy to allow the electorate to speculate on it though. Truth will out.

hugo2008, Wirral says...
5:22pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Stephen Hesford, Can I ask you an open question, this set of incidents connected to Mr Morton and the whole whistle blowing episode, has some very important legal implications, what are you doing about it, you have legal training and must have an opinion, are you prepared to make a comment to your constituents.
I think people who elected you would expect some kind of reaction, just for the sake of fair play, and a bit of open honesty.

piggymalone, wirral says...
6:53pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Dont hold your breath Hugo, we would hate to lose you.

glenn, moreton, says...
8:11pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Absolutely disgraceful to rip-off vulnerable people who have entrusted their finances to the council in return for a service only for the council - in particular, that venerable man in the grey suit, bill norman- to arrogantly assert that the victims must APPLY to claim back the money which was ROBBED from them. Only in this country could such extortion at the highest level a la MPs expenses be excused from punishment - what a pathetic bunch of weak and sycophantic(to civil servants and mandarins) leaders we have. I won't bother to suggest the council leader to hang his head in shame because he has none. UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL

Jayo, Wallasey says...
8:43pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Like with the library fiasco are the government going to get involved in this ?
The actions of this council are criminal acts and are bringing the WBC into disrepute. They are doing this in our name and are shaming all of Wirral.
How must Wirral look to the rest of the world ?
This Norman character is a shyster what are his qualifications ?

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says...
8:51pm Fri 15 Jan 10

I accompanied Mr Morton to a surgery of Frank Field's before Christmas so I can state quite categorically that he is well aware of the situation. Obviously I am not in a position to give details of the discussion, suffice to say Mr Field gave some curious but illuminating answers on how modern politics works.
I accompanied Mr Morton to a surgery of Frank Field's before Christmas so I can state quite categorically that he is well aware of the situation. Obviously I am not in a position to give details of the discussion, suffice to say Mr Field gave some curious but illuminating answers on how modern politics works.

MX, Wirral says...
9:00pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Glenn,you've hit the nail on the head.
There has been a complete lack of leadership in this case.Why hasn't the Leader of the Council,the Health & Social Care Lead,the Chief Executive or local MP stepped in long before now to sort this appalling mess out?.
The failure to take decisive action invites speculation that this is to serve political and/or personal interests and this is the tip of a very dodgy iceberg.

statictom, Bromborough says...
11:39am Sat 16 Jan 10

Its nice to see so many comments raised on this matter. What these people need is good legal advice to take this council to the cleaners. Not only for the overpaid money to be returned, but also due compensation. This council are making it harder for these people to claim back what they are owed. Since a number of the people owed money are now no longer with us, their families should now fight for what was legally their loved ones cash. Anything to make this council cough up what they are duly obliged to do. As for the benefits system the council are trying to wriggle out of their moral responsibility to the people. Oh, sorry this council have no morals. If the people owed this money have problems getting it back then use the councils own system to seek justice, ie, tribunals and the ombudsman. Anything to shame this council.

MX, Wirral says...
7:23pm Sat 16 Jan 10

REWIND.
Apologies I've missed a previous post.
The Loose Cannon says that Frank Field knows about this?.
And he thinks this is OK?.................
............
Oh by the way I know that Stephen Hesford Knows about this too.However how would any one of sound mind entrust anything of any worth in the incapable hands of Mr.Hesford.
He seems to think that wearing a bobbly red scarf makes him a socialist.
Get this self-serving filth off the Wirral.NOW!

Helen A, bromborough says...
8:55pm Sat 16 Jan 10

I have been following this sorry saga since it broke and cannot believe that this Council continue to exploit these people the way they do. Surely the social services dept has a duty of care towards vulnerable people so why oh why isn't their director, John Webb, stepping in and doing the right thing? Has he no conscience, integrity or even a simple desire to do the right thing? Oh of course he hasn't as he is implicated throughout this shameful debacle isn't he? Surely him and his cronies are not fit to continue in such highly paid, responsible positions, and should be subjected to a vote of no confidence by those who pay their wages ie the taxpayers of Wirral. I'm fairly certain what the outcome would be and then we could dole them out some paltry benefits to live on and see how they fare? Seriously though, it's a disgrace that they are all still in post and someone in this Council needs to do something to remedy this situation now

MX, Wirral says...
9:37pm Sat 16 Jan 10

I think there was a vote of no confidence in John Webb and that's why Batman was drafted in as Deputy Director (you couldn't make it up).Well lets face it they'd already sorted out the Robbin' (geddit?).
But then Batman wrote that appalling report that was presented to Cabinet on Thursday.
He doesn't give a **** though does he?.No doubt it's part of his early retirement deal.
"OK Chrissy-baby ,we know it's wrong and you know absolutely nothing about this case but put your name on the bottom of the report and we'll see you right".
Italian Riviera in the spring with the missus is it Chris?. Shame on you.
You complain that Adult Social Services has a bullying culture but you don't do anything about it do you?.Of course not you're visualising sipping amaretto on the terrazza.

maninthestreet, upton says...
10:16pm Sat 16 Jan 10

Well done Wirral Globe for helping Mr Morton to expose this scandal. If Mr Morton thinks more people are involved then the matter needs to be properly investigated so that every single victim is fully reimbursed. The people of Wirral should demand a public enquiry to expose the thieving scumbags in WBC. Can't wait to hear what our elected representitives have to say on the matter.

piggymalone, wirral says...
10:46pm Sat 16 Jan 10

The lack of response from MP`s and councillors is appalling (believe me every one of them is aware of this case and indeed a number of them have been aware for many years). The lack of positive action (even the "independent" investigation into Mr Mortons treatment will turn into a scam) shows Wirral Council up for the dishonest bunch they are. The only real positive action the public can take is to get rid of this rubbish at the comming general and local elections althouh I suppose we could all make complaints to the Ombudsman......anyone believe that action would do any good?

Wirral Council admits owing £244,000 to vulnerable care home tenants

2010-01-14T18:18:00.001Z

14th January 2010

Wirral Globe - by Leigh Marles

The outcome of a "whistleblower" investigation could tonight see Wirral Council agreeing to repay almost a quarter of a million pounds to 16 care home residents.

Elderly and vulnerable people living in homes at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, were systematically overcharged by Adult Social Services for seven years.

The scandal only came to light after former council employee Martin Morton revealed the overcharging to the Wirral Globe in November, 2008.

He had raised his concerns several times with his managers, but claimed he was ignored, bullied and driven out of his job.

Following our exclusive reports, two senior officers were suspended but, after disciplinary hearings, were later reinstated.

The stress of blowing the whistle drove Mr Martin to the verge of a nervous breakdown and he was subsequently hospitalised.

He was given a £45,000 pay-off from the council to leave his job in social services.

An internal audit to examine Mr Martin's claims was eventually ordered and reported its findings in September of last year.

It ruled that people living in the three homes under a so-called "special charging policy" had been overcharged and that the policy was unlawful.

The town hall has set aside £68,000 to repay the residents - but the total sum needed is £244,000.

And a report to tonight's cabinet meeting makes clear the authority is not going to just hand over a cheque for the money it owes.

Instead, the council's director of law, Bill Norman, is recommending that officers write to individuals "advising" them to make a claim against the authority.

Mr Norman says that residents on means-tested benefits may encounter unexpected difficulties if they suddenly come into a substantial sum of money.

He says: "There is the potential impact upon each affected individual’s current financial position.

"The impact of the reimbursement of a significant sum of money, when combined with any capital resources an individual may already have, may have wider implications that may not be initially appreciated by those in receipt of means-tested benefits.

"The regulations for such benefits are framed in such a way as to preclude individuals or those acting on their behalf from taking such actions, in any way, which may be regarded as an evasion of benefit regulations."

Mr Norman recommends that individuals will need to be notified that they may have a claim against the council in respect of the "deemed overpayment."

"They will need to consider their positions, and if they believe they have a legitimate entitlement, make a claim for reimbursement against the council.

"It would be advisable, and indeed highly desirable, that each individual be given access to independent advice in formulating such a view and potential claim."

He suggests the council should steer tenants with a potential claim towards the Wirral Advocacy Service, a charity which offers free legal advice.

The cabinet will be asked to authorise reimbursing the 16 people who are owed money.

Officers will be told to write to individuals and their carers and advocates informing them of this, and inviting them to seek appropriate advice "so as to ensure they make an informed decision if they choose to submit a claim."

.

© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Comments on the above story, published in the Wirral Globe

2010-01-14T18:17:00.002Z

statictom, Bromborough says...
2:08pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Sounds like the council are trying to blackmail these people. You have to apply for money which you have been overcharged but it may effect your benefits. They will try anything. This is money that these people have already paid in charges. They should seek legal advice and sue the council not just for the overpayment but for compensation for being treated in this way. Just sounds like the council trying to worm its way out of the matter - it would not have come to this if they had not been overcharged. But because the people concerned are elderly the council will try their best to put obstacles in their way. No disrespect to the Wirral Advocacy Service who offer good advice, this is a job for a good solicitor to represent all people overcharged.

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
2:17pm Thu 14 Jan 10

It is about time that behaviour of this kind was made a criminal offence.I saw ythis happen to a client of mine twenty odd years ago . Driven to retire from the NHS through ill health caused by stress after ytrying to clean up a Theaters in a group of hospitals. She refused to sign off on theaters that it was her responsibilty to certify as clean.
Death by negligence in the NHS or care should attract a manslaughter charge not a slap on the wrist.

statictom, Bromborough says...
2:24pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Further to my last note - these people should all claim what they are entitled to. THEN IF NECESSARY WHEN THEY RECEIVE PAYMENT - GIVE IT TO A LOVED ONE/RELATIVE, ETC/CHARITY - anyone other than letting the council keep it. This way it shoud not effect benefits.

hugo2008, Wirral says...
2:31pm Thu 14 Jan 10

If this does not result in some heads rolling from very senior positions in WBC employ, then there is something very seriously wrong, and a public enquiry is required. The sheer scandal of the situation Mr Morton was placed in was bad enough, but the callous taking advantage of those unable to defend themselves is a public disgrace. The entire Wirral Council Executive should hang their heads in shame. Plus our so called elected council representatives must also accept some responsibility for this appalling episode, that went for some considerable time and to their knowledge.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
2:38pm Thu 14 Jan 10

So they are basically saying "yeah, we stole the money. So what ? Want it back ? Try it. The SS will have it off you anyway so we don't really give a toss what happens."
....
Of course, the council Should be tackling this themselves and issuing cheques to everyone they stole from with a full and frank apology admitting liability.
...
Defrauding and now blackmailing the vulnerable and sick. Has this council no shame, no sense of common decency whatsoever ? How low can they go ?
...
I'd like to see one single SS officer stand up and publicly try to justify reducing anyone's benefits in this case. Any monies repaid under these circumstances are not compensation, they are not savings, they are not capital. They were stolen.
...
MPs that represent these people should be coming forward immediately to protect and fight for them not leaving it to the individuals to fight this alone. If there was ever a time to step up and do what they are paid for its now.
...
Where is Frank Field on this ??

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
2:49pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Before you slag off WBC compare them to TOTBAY BC. They are reviewing employees contracts with up to 25% pay cuts in mind.
The one group of employees exempt from this exercise are the executives of the Council.
As recent immagrant from Devon
I must congratulate the park keepers. Your Health services are better on the Whole. Highways however have made me raise my eyebrows. Potholes are more common in this area, and very very slowly treated.
The public are much the same, always shouting for more services provided they can get others to pay for them. But then we are all British arn't we?

Veridici, Wirral says...
3:10pm Thu 14 Jan 10

It's disgraceful that this Director of Law has decreed that people with learning disabilities have to claim back SOME of the money which was taken illegally by the Council because they "might" be eligible for a refund.

The amount involved is only HALF of what was stolen by the Counci. What has happened to the other half? You might well ask.

The same Director of Law has already decreed that it would be ILLEGAL to assess people retrospectively, yet that is precisely what is being done now.

Instead of refunding the money taken illegally in full the Council will now ILLEGALLY assess those people RETROSPECTIVELY and charge them what they MIGHT have charged them IF a certain decision had been made eight years ago.

This cannot be decided on what MIGHT have been or SHOULD have been. It has to be on what actually happened.

Veridici, Wirral says...
3:23pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Ivorromaleyn, you mention Torbay. Is it any coincidence that Wirral's current Director of Law came to Wirral from Torbay?
.
A closer investigation of that on-going 'relationship' would prove fruitful ...

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
3:49pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Statictom. Your comments would apply, if the application of common sense was recognised in law.
However despite appeals to Common sense from Rosie Winterton and David Cameron
Political correctness rules OK.
Veridici NO! I was not aware of the
Wirral's Director of law's origins.
However He might tell us if it is true that common sense and morality have to be abandoned at the door of Law School?

piggymalone, wirral says...
5:23pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Isnt it about time our honest, hard working councillors stood up to Norman and told him about morals.
Councillors can overturn recommendations from council officers, so lets have some guts shown by our elected representatives.....
some hope!

piggymalone, wirral says...
5:28pm Thu 14 Jan 10

And to Martin Morton, it appears to me that 100% of the population of Wirral support your actions, dont give up, the only people after you are the crooks in Wallasey Town Hall and they are showing signs of nervous guilt.

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
5:38pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Piggy Malone is right.
Why don't the public petition the Queen to recognise Mt Morton in New Years Honours list.
He is much more worthy than some of the other jobs worths.
Her address is Buckingham Palace in a joint called London.

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says...
6:19pm Thu 14 Jan 10

The truly disgusting aspect of this is that the Council is already laying the groundwork for clawing back everything it refunds.

I'm sure that they could, if the will was there, negotiate over the Income Support regulations as there must be some way in which these refunds can be ignored in exceptional circumstances - and they don't come much more exceptional!

Instead of doing that they are already issuing warnings that once the money is refunded these people will no longer be able to claim Income Support, Housing Benefit, and other support benefits.

No doubt that would enable the Council to reclaim every penny, and more.

This council, this Director of Law, these officers, these councillors all have to be stopped and if the only way that can happen is by the carers and next-of-kin dragging the Council through the courts, then so be it.

The Council has had nine years to right these wrongs. If these spineless Councillors don't do the right thing now, and continue to hide behind each other, then they are all as guilty as the DASS bullies.

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
6:54pm Thu 14 Jan 10

I have already written to her Majesty pointing out that she is about the only person left in the Kingdom that might be able to exrcise common sense.
Bill Norman I fear is a lawyer, and is unable to apply common sense or decency
I have requested her recognition of Mr Morton's services to the community.I have also pointed to the declining standards in our public administration and the need for a signal from the top.

MX, Wirral says...
6:59pm Thu 14 Jan 10

This case is mindblowing.The so -called "whistleblower" (sorry Martin Morton) seems to have been right in every aspect of his claims and it has been reported in the press and on a previous post that he has stated that £500K is owed by the Council to disabled people.

Something doesn't add up. Talking of which this case seems to have involved cover-up,negligence,
incompetence,financi
al abuse,delay,waste of public money and sheer malice by the Council if Mr.Morton's claims of bullying are to be believed and yet he was the one to lose his job.As I said mindblowing!.

What happened to that promised bullying investigation by the way?.
If all this money is owed it should ABSOLUTELY be paid back but I would suggest NOT by the long-suffering Council Tax payer.I would suggest the "Shirley Porter" approach and all those Councillors and Council officers who have covered this up should be surcharged on the grounds of their "malfesance" and personally pay this money back.Then and only then will those responsible for this mess be held accountable.
Oh and I agree about the OBE!.
Well I mean, hasn't Steve Maddox got one?.

piggymalone, wirral says...
8:31pm Thu 14 Jan 10

There has rarely been a Wirral Council "incident" that has seen 100% criticism from the general public but this affair has rallied the support of the electorate for one man and shamed the responsible councillors and officers.
They didnt even have the guts tonight to over-rule Norman with his reccommendation to force the victims to apply to the council in writing for a refund of the overpayments.....abs
olute disgrace

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
9:42pm Thu 14 Jan 10

ask the Queento signal our disgust please . It is the only option left in this so called democracy

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
9:47pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Perhaps the most hypocritical too-faced twisted comment so far:
"The regulations for such benefits are framed in such a way as to preclude individuals or those acting on their behalf from taking such actions, in any way, which may be regarded as an evasion of benefit regulations."
...
The implication is that even to receive a substantial refund of monies stolen is tantamount to benefit fraud. The thieves are accusing the victims of being thieves themselves.
...
This stinks SO bad.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
9:48pm Thu 14 Jan 10

*two-faced

piggymalone, wirral says...
10:25pm Thu 14 Jan 10

I cant argue that refunding these overpayments may well affect peoples benefits but isnt that up to the person in question to decide and deal with, that is none of Normans business. He is obviously trying to frighten the claimants into not applying for the money back, what a.......... this man is

MX, Wirral says...
10:28pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Yes Spiffy this stinks (to high heaven) and all those responsible should go to hell in a handcart.

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
1:23am Fri 15 Jan 10

Before I retire for the night I wondered..... how exactly would any SS officer declare receipt in repayment of the stolen monies as Anything other than the income that had ALREADY been assessed in calculation of due benefits ?
...
It is certainly not EXTRA income by any stretch of the imagination.
...
Perhaps the globe can conduct an interview with a senior SS officer and get the official lowdown on this particular issue. These threats should be countered wherever possible and I think that the local press can do more - in their official capacity - to dig deeper for the facts.

slumdog, wallasey says...
7:26am Fri 15 Jan 10

I have nothing to add to what has already been said here. This is very very wrong indeed. it does not surprise me that it should continue in the same unjust fashion. Contrary to popular belief it is not an easy thing to claim benefits of any kind, whether throgh local councils or other agencies. It can become tortuous to the point that only the very desperate persist. I hope somebody does so on behalf of these people, some of whom may have been put off already by the mere mention of more form filling.

Veridici, Wirral says...
9:24am Fri 15 Jan 10

Conspicuous by its absence is any comment - any comment at all - from the chair of the Social Care & Health Committee who has been overseeing this for years.
.
Cllr McLoughlin must be asked about her prior knowledge of this 'special charging policy', and her failure to comment at last November's council meeting because the matter was "of potential interest to a personal friend".
.
She must name that personal friend and explain why that friendship should take precedence over her Council duties to vulnerable people in our community.
.
She is unfit to continue to hold that office and must resign NOW!

hugo2008, Wirral says...
11:38am Fri 15 Jan 10

Where do our National MPs stand in all this debacle, they will soon be asking for your vote. Give it to them in no uncertain manner.
Cllr Mcloughlin, normally has a mouth big enough to shovel sandwiches into, what does she have to say, with her inside knowledge.
Steve Maddox is the so called leader, surprisingly very silent on this issue, I wonder why.
Come on Martin Morton write your memoirs or a book, certain to sell many thousands just in Wirral Alone.

djrimmer, Wallasey says...
12:19pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Hugo, a very good point about the local MP`s. I cant remember one of them commenting on this case. Are they keeping their heads down for a reason? Where they complicant in the case? Do they have something to hide? is it a case of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns? me thinks it may well be.

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
11:57pm Fri 15 Jan 10

When commenting here, the Globe cites personal responsibility and states "Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious". Hence there are no comments from the crooks involved.......

piggymalone, wirral says...
11:10am Sat 16 Jan 10

I think the affected constituents were Chis Blakeley`s and Simon Mountneys
(if I am wrong I appologise) and I am well aware that Chis in particular trawls this site and in the past has commented. Chris, I think its about time you broke the silence and let all these voters know where you stand on this issue. Martin Morton and the overcharge residents need support not only from the public but some honest politicians if there are any left. So come on Chris and Simon, it was your constituents that were ripped off

MX, Wirral says...
1:45pm Sat 16 Jan 10

Wasn't Councillor Simon Mountney responsible for bringing this matter to such prominence in the first place Piggy?.
Wasn't there an article in the Globe where he called investigations carried out by the Council as a "sham"?.
It's certainly not him that needs prompting on this matter it's the likes of Cllr Bridson and Cllr.McLoughlin who as far as I can make out are the Councillors overseeing this area of Council work.
An earlier post referred to Cllr.McLoughlin failing to comment because the matter was of "potential interest to a personal friend".This is disgraceful.When somebody's personal loyalties take precedence over their civic responsibilities they need to make up their mind what's more important -dinner parties or disability rights.

piggymalone, wirral says...
5:22pm Sat 16 Jan 10

Yes, you are correct MX but I was wanting to know what their (Cllr Mountney and Cllr Blakeley) reaction was to Normans despicapable move to put the responsibility on to the affected people to have to make a claim. Not one councillor has commented on this uttlery disgracful move by a non elected officer. Yes, I know the move was approved by cabinet but that doesnt mean every councillor approves of such a decision. I suspect this will be a case of whips telling members to keep their mouths shut, except maybe in the case of the conservatives. I am surprised and disappointed the independent candidate, David Kirwan, has kept quiet over this very didturbing and serious matter

MX, Wirral says...
10:02pm Sat 16 Jan 10

"I am surprised and disappointed the independent candidate, David Kirwan, has kept quiet over this very disturbing and serious matter".

Please don't be disappointed and don't be surprised Piggy.Have a good night's sleep.

piggymalone, wirral says...
10:55pm Sat 16 Jan 10

MX, I suppose I was being facetious concerning Mr Kirwan particularly as you probably know, I support independent candidates through the Residents Alliance. Independents have no party whips to bow down to so I would expect them to comment on this very serious matter, but hey ho, you could argue that David Kirwan was not elected as an independent but only threw teddy in the corner when he fell out with the tories.
Anyhow good night to you and all our other fellow contributors

.

© copyright the Authors. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Cheated abuse victims will have to claim refunds

2010-01-10T13:24:00.003Z

According to a report by John Webb, Director of Adult Social Services, and quoting Bill Norman, Director of Law, the former residents of Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road who were financially abused by Wirral Council over a period of nine years, and cheated out of approximately half a million pounds, will have to make individual claims in order to get just some of their money back.

Sixteen individuals have been identified who fall within the remit of the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Management Committee. Of these three are deceased and five have moved out of the premises concerned.

The advice from the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management regarding the process for reimbursement is that individuals will need to be advised that they may have a claim against the Council in respect of the deemed “overpayment”. They will need to consider their positions and if they believe they have a legitimate entitlement, make a claim for reimbursement against the Council. It would be advisable, and indeed highly desirable, that each individual be given access to independent advice in formulating such a view and potential claim.

The cost of reimbursing all individuals who would be entitled to make a claim, should Cabinet approve the recommendations, is £241,482. An amount of £68,000 has been set aside in the accounts for such reimbursements so there is a potential shortfall of £173,485. The Adult Social Services Department has no resources available to meet this ‘oneoff’ cost and it is recommended that this be met from balances.

Recommendations
That Cabinet is asked to approve the recommendations of the Audit and Risk Management Committee:
(1) To implement the principle of reimbursement of service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton between April 2003 and February 2006, insofar as the sums actually paid by an individual service user exceeded what they might reasonably have been required to pay had the Council implemented Fairer Charging in April 2003, by making, upon receipt of a legitimate claim, any appropriate reimbursement and/or to take any other appropriate restorative action.
(2) To approve the reimbursement of residents and former residents of Bermuda Road, Curlew Road and Edgehill Road, Moreton for the period dating back from March 2003 to December 2000, based on the difference between the “Special Charging Policy” and the wider review of Social Services charging approved by Members in July 2000, where the Council is in receipt of a legitimate claim; and/or to take any other appropriate restorative action.
(3) Cabinet is further asked to authorise officers to write (and confirm with appropriate other means) to individuals (and their carers and advocates) informing them of this decision and inviting them to seek appropriate advice so as to ensure they make an informed decision if they choose to submit a claim; and to provide sufficient information to advocates, acting on the individuals’ behalf, to ensure that the individuals can be fully advised of all relevant implications.

The report will be presented to a meeting of the Cabinet scheduled for next Thursday, 14 January 2010, in Committee Room 1 of Wallasey Town Hall, commencing at 6.15pm.

The meeting is open to members of the public.
.

© copyright Wirral Council. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Wirral Council overcharged vulnerable adults in care

2009-11-27T17:34:00.000Z

Liverpool Daily Post by Liam Murphy,

COUNCILLORS in Wirral have agreed to repay 16 people who were overcharged by social services for their care.

The authority was forced to re-examine the cases of people with learning difficulties who were in supported living accommodation at three sites in Wirral between 1997 and 2006.

A previous meeting of the authority’s audit committee in September heard evidence from former social services worker Martin Morton.

He described how he had exposed the unfair “special charging policy” in which a small group of vulnerable adults in council care had been subject to extra charging – often leaving them “in penury”, according to committee member Simon Mountney, who has taken up the issue.

Mr Morton also told the committee he had subsequently been bullied and deliberately isolated until he left the authority’s employment. Shortly after that meeting, which had agreed to repayments totalling £116,300 dating back to 2003, the council announced it was launching an investigation into the allegations made by Mr Morton.

On Wednesday night, the council committee was presented with a “final statement” by Mr Morton, outlining his knowledge of the “special charging policy” which the authority applied at just three supported living accommodation sites. Mr Morton had been pressing for the reimbursements to date back to 1997 when the charges were introduced, but the Labour and Lib-Dem members of the committee outvoted the Conservatives to reimburse back to December, 2000, on the advice of borough solicitor Bill Norman.

Mr Norman told the committee that in his view the decision taken in 1997 was reasonable “in the light of information that was or wasn’t available from the Government”.

The audit committee was told that a report on social services charging, in July, 2000, had promised a further report on Supported Living charges, but this report never materialised.

It was therefore resolved by the committee that the reimbursements should date back to this point.

Cllr Mountney, pressing for the repayments to go back to 1997, told the audit committee: “The decision in 1997 only applied to 16 people – it might have been legally correct but it’s wrong.”

He said any decision to refuse to repay the full amount would leave the authority “morally bankrupt in the eyes of the public”.

A report to the committee said: “Reimbursement for the 16 service users who were affected for the period December 4, 2000, to March 31, 2003, would total £127,700.”

After the meeting at Wallasey Town Hall, Sue Lowe, of the Independent Disabled People’s Forum, said: “It’s important that these kids get their money back, but we must make sure this never happens again.”.

© copyright Liam Murphy. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Email from The Loose Cannon to Bill Norman

2009-11-27T07:24:00.002Z

The following email has been made available to this site by its author. Apparently it was sent in response to a statement made by the Director of Law at the ARMC meeting of 25 November.

----- Original Message -----
From: The Loose Cannon
To: billnorman@wirral.gov.uk
Cc: simonmountney@wirral.gov.uk ; jimcrabtree@wirral.gov.uk ; ronabbey@wirral.gov.uk ; peterreisdorf@wirral.gov.uk; paulasouthwood@wirral.gov.uk
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 1:43 PM
Subject: Swimming pool.

Mr Norman,

Your ludicrous analogy of last night does not hold water - pun intended - and smacked of sheer desperation.

Would any sane person consider it to be "reasonable" and therefore "lawful" for the Council to only charged the same sixteen people for entry to your pool every week for nine years, while everyone else got in free or at a reduced rate?

You know that no court in the land would support that, so in your heart you cannot believe any court would uphold your 'opinion' regarding the illegal charges.

.
Reproduced by kind permission of The Loose Cannon
.

Cost of investigation and disciplinary process re senior council officers - LATEST

2009-11-23T20:04:00.000Z

Wirral Council has responded to M Smith's Freedom of Informaion request as under:

Thank you for your request for information below. The Officer, who made the decision to engage Mr. Hewitt through North West Employers, was our Head of Legal Services, Mr. Bill Norman. The contractual arrangement was between the Council and North West Employers, it is common practice for Local Authorities to contract with this organisation.

Mr. Norman requested names from North West Employers and Mr. Hewitt was one of the names they provided. Mr. Norman had had no previous dealings with Mr. Hewitt and took his name as one recommended by North West Employers.

.

.

Martin Morton's report to ARMC - 25 November 2009

2009-11-22T14:32:00.001Z

The report writen by Martin Morton for the Audit & Risk Managemnt meeting on 25 November [next Wednesday, 6.15] has been published on the Wirral Council website.

The report has been ~~castrated~~ edited by Bill Norman, Director of Law, and can be read HERE.

It is too long to reproduce in its entireity, but these are the conclusions and recommendation:

5. Conclusions

5.1 It is by now beyond dispute that the Special Charging Policy was unfair:

- Several other anomalies were also identified ... – Social Services Committee (September 1999)
- “There is unfairness in the system ...” - [Officer C (DASS)] (2004)
- “The Group felt this (Special charging Policy) was unfair ...” – Charging Policy Review Group (2005)
- “The inequity of the Charging Policy has been a concern for some time ...” – [Officer I (DASS)] (2006)
- The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management considers the policy to have been “unreasonable” and therefore “unlawful” at specific times

5.2 What has become a matter of dispute is whether Wirral Council dealt appropriately and effectively with this “unfairness”.

The Report of Internal Chief Officer for ARMC on November 3rd ( para 3.2 p.8) states that:

“Further discussions and enquiries were made with DASS officers and managers. All were again open, co-operative and helpful......”

Whilst I do not believe that all DASS staff have been obstructive during Internal Audit’s investigation, I strongly refute that this if this has always been the case If so why have I spent nine years fighting for justice, and why did I lose the job that I was so strongly committed to? I have witnessed senior officers lie to ARMC as they blatantly did to the Audit Commission. (I shake my head in despair every time I hear reference to“daily living costs/funds”).

I have been constantly reminded of the proverb that I included in my original grievance/whistleblowing submission:

“If we keep up appearances we won’t be found out......”

Cllr. Abbey commented at ARMC on November 3rd on the “drip, drip ,drip” of informationthat has been a feature of this sorry saga.

The “drip, drip, drip” has been entirely of the Council’s making. I have taken several days leave from work, produced a series of reports (including this one) and provided information as requested to assist with ongoing investigations. If particular senior officers and indeed, particular Councillors had been truly “open, co-operative and helpful” I would not have had to get up at 4am to complete this report before I go to work.

Furthermore, I would not have lost my job, there would have been no PIDA report, no suspensions, no investigations, no special meetings, no solicitor’s fees, no Compromise Agreement, no payment of £45,000 to keep quiet, no need for a gagging clause, no adverse publicity and no possibility, as there is now, of the Council bringing itself into disrepute.

Whilst this case has been a terrible waste of Council resources, the personal, negative repercussions for me and my family have been incalculable.

5.3 Wirral Council’s response to this case has been to minimise
a) financial liability and b) serious malpractice.

I have detailed how the potential financial liability has grown exponentially from September 2008 from £0 to £243,700 as investigations have progressed.

I maintain that if I had not pressed ARMC the Council would have agreed to “take the hit” on the £78,499.62 figure detailed by Director of DASS in November 2008 and that as far as they were concerned would have been the end of the matter.

The council charged tenants of Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road approximately £500K during the period 1997-2006 that I maintain was unlawful under the Special Charging Policy.

I fully understand that these are difficult financial times but that is no justification for unlawfully withholding money that is rightfully theirs from vulnerable people.

It should also be noted this is not just about the Special Charging Policy, this is about legitimate charges were not made, which, according to my calculations, amounts to a sum well into seven figures. Again I strongly refute the previously reported claim that the loss of income amounted to £300,000 especially when I was told by Mr. Norman three weeks prior to the publication of the report presented to ARMC the loss amounted to £580,000.

The tendency to minimise serious malpractice is reflected in the speech that Cllr. Denise Roberts gave to Committee on November 2nd 2009. Cllr.Roberts has kindly forwarded me a copy of her speech wherein she stated:

“What we are dealing with, quite frankly, is a mess that needs to be sorted out"

I would suggest that what we are actually dealing with is maladministration, financial mismanagement and an appalling abuse of power.

This tendency is also reflected in the comment that John Webb, (Director of DASS) made in his presentation to ARMC members on November 3rd 2009 about the observation made by Dame Denise Platt from the Commission of Social Care Inspection during a visit to Wirral on Mr. Webb’s first day as Director. She reasoned that the Department had found themselves in special measures because “Wirral couldn’t count”.

Might I suggest on the evidence of this report that DASS should never have come out of special measures?

If there is a single piece of evidence I would ask ARMC to consider it is the following email exchange which I have already referenced within this report and which I include in it’s entirety as it demonstrates so clearly the two issues I have highlighted about financial liability and serious malpractice.

------------------------------------------------------------
emails removed as they already appear on this site
------------------------------------------------------------

6. Recommendation

Despite the apparent complexities of this case I would refer members back to my email sent to the Audit Commission in September 2008 (para 2.11)

“It is matter of simply adding up what charges were made upon the tenants of 3 addresses between 1997 -2006 and paying it back....................”

I implore you not to be constrained by political affiliations and to make your decision in accordance with what is right and acknowledge the citizenship and legal rights of people with learning disabilities who lived at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road and who were subject to an unlawful charge.

Martin Morton
19 November 2009

Payment time?

2009-11-21T17:20:00.001Z

Wirral News by Liam Murphy

THIS week we will (maybe) find out how much Wirral Council will repay a group of vulnerable adults who were overcharged while in local authority care.

The "final statement" by Martin Morton, the man who highlighted the overcharging of vulnerable people by social services and lost his job, has been published on the council's web page.

At 28 pages long, it's quite a read although it has been "redacted" (funny how that word keeps coming back) by the council's director of law.

A preface to the statement says: "This statement has been redacted by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management to remove all names of present and former officers except for current Chief Officers and the Chief Internal Auditor. This has been done in view of the current investigation into other allegations by Mr Morton. In addition a small number of other potentially defamatory comments have also been redacted."

The council has been forced by the sheer persistence of Mr Morton to take his concerns about the so-called "special charging policy" seriously.

About 15 people were overcharged while staying at just a handful of supported living accommodation places. Mr Morton believes this over-charging totals some £500,000. Wirral Council has come round to accept some over-charging, but disputes the amount, and the Audit Committee has the task of recommending to the ruling cabinet how much should be repaid.

However, the case potentially has wider ramifications. Martin Morton's allegations can be summed up by the following quote from his statement to the committee: "if you take money from an individual (vulnerable or otherwise) to which you have no right it's called theft. The result of this theft left a young man with learning disabilities so destitute that he has to apply to a welfare fund to buy clothes. This wasn't an accounting error. This was systematic and callous abuse and is evidenced by the statement recorded in an email by a Senior Officer of Wirral Council who no doubt was questioned during your investigation: "Once we go for reimbursement our covers blown"."

In fact, the email from which the concern about the cover being blown is still more revealing (taken from Mr Morton's report):

[Officer C (DASS)] to [Officer D (DASS)]
24 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation - Charging Policy
Once we go for a 'reimbursement' the cover's blown. However we can't bury our head in the sand for too much longer as the charging review group will start soon (it could be better to leave it to that group to consider?) In the meantime there is'unfairness' in the system hence my advice to X to consider the broader issues in AMT.
By the book:- there is no separate charging policy for this service, so it could be argued the domiciliary care charging policy must apply (and should have since '97), and that will mean a hefty reimbursement.
I would suggest we go to the Cabinet in the political down time (May-June) to get agreement for a 'special charging policy' for supported living as part of the budget strategy.... and that this policy maintains the status quo in financial terms but does so more fairly. I would also suggest the impact on individuals and groups in certain living situations are considered in more depth as I was left thinking the charging practice was very diverse and almost locally determined by individual staff (although I could be wrong there).
Mr Morton concludes his report to the Audit Committee with this recommendation:

"It is matter of simply adding up what charges were made upon the tenants of 3 addresses between 1997 -2006 and paying it back...................."

I implore you not to be constrained by political affiliations and to make your decision in accordance with what is right and acknowledge the citizenship and legal rights of people with learning disabilities who lived at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road and who were subject to an unlawful charge.

Maybe we'll find out at
Audit and Risk Management Committee
Date: Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Time: 6.15 pm
Venue: Committee Room 1 - Wallasey Town Hall

.

© copyright Liam Murphy. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Cost of investigation and disciplinary process re senior council officers - LATEST

2009-11-15T07:50:00.003Z

There has been an exchange of emails between M Smith and Wirral Borough Council on the What Do They Know website updating this Freedom of Information request:

From Jane Corrin, WBC

Thank you for your recent email shown below. I have supplied Council response below which I trust you will find of use.

The Disciplinary Investigation concerning the two senior offices in DASS was conducted by Vic Hewitt. The contractual arrangement was between the Council and North West Employers.
The council has voluntarily agreed to pay for independent legal support for Martin Morton. This support has been provided by Mace and Jones Solicitors in Liverpool (who Mr Morton had [previously personally instucted). The support has been in place since 8 December 2008 and is continuing. The cost has amounted to £10,809.50 (plus VAT which the Council will recover).

From M Smith:

Thank you for your response.

I would be grateful if you would kindly identify the officer or officers who made the decision to engage Vic Hewitt through North West Employers rather than directly through his own company, Vic Hewitt Consulting Ltd., which would have saved public money?

Thank you.

.

© copyright respective authors. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Email from The Loose Cannon to Cllr Denise Roberts

2009-11-09T23:26:00.000Z

The following email has been made available to this site.

----- Original Message -----
From: The Loose Cannon
To: deniseroberts@wirral.gov.uk
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 12:09 PM
Subject: 'Special Charging Policy'

Dear Councillor Roberts,

I was surprised and disappointed to read the contents of the amendment you moved at Council last Monday.

Surprised because according to Council Minutes you were present at the following meetings when you and other elected members were made aware of the unfairness of the Special Charging Policy policy.

18 January 2005 - Social Care & Health Select Committee
14 February 2005 - Social Care & Health Select Committee
22 August 2005 - Charging Policy Consultation Group

Disappointed because of the part you have played in allowing the policy to continue for four more years in the full knowledge that it was "unfair" and therefore "unlawful", to quote the Director of Law

In the Wirral Globe you are quoted as saying:

"We are dealing with decisions that were intended to improve the life of those in supported living."

"We are dealing with people who tried to do the best job they could, but the best job wasn't good enough."

Can you please explain to me how Mike Fowler was doing the best job he could to improve the life of those in supported living when he wrote
"Once we go for a 'reimbursement' the cover's blown. However we can't bury our head in the sand for too much longer as the charging review group will start soon " ... "it could be argued the domiciliary care charging policy must apply (and should have since '97)" ... ""

Again, I would love to know your rationale for saying Maura Noone was doing the best job she could to improve the life of those in supported living when she wrote
"With other clients who no longer have to pay charges,they are not reimbursed for charges they have paid in the past.This group will be similarly affected ..."

My son was one of many financially [and otherwise] abused by a private provider when placed in their care by Wirral Council. Why has the private provider continued to get away with it nine years later? Because the owner told the police, when questioned under oath, that he was only doing the same as the Council.

You are one of the elected members who turned their backs on people like my son - the most vulnerable people in Wirral.

And perhaps you can explain to me why Martin Morton, the only person in DASS who tried to help my son and others in his predicament, was paid £45,000 to keep quiet, and hounded out of his job, leaving vulnerable people even more vulnerable?

Sincerely

It seems that no acknowledgement has yet been received.

© copyright 'The Loose Cannon', and reproduced by kind permission
.

Wirral carers and residents knock council’s social services’ consultation process

2009-11-04T13:56:00.005Z

Birkenhead News by Carrie Catterall,

CARERS have accused the council of “abdicating responsibility” of the elderly in the adult social services shake-up.

Despite the council’s consultation process carers and residents at Pensall House say they feel they have been left out.

They say they feel more of an emphasis is being put on services for people with learning disabilities and the responsibility for the elderly is being abdicated.

If plans go ahead, Poulton House, Wallasey, could be developed into a dementia centre and Pensall House, Pensby, could provide respite for people with learning disabilities.

This would leave the elderly using personal budgets given to them by the council to pay for them to live in their own home for longer or for care in the private sector.

One carer at Pensall House said: “We feel like the duty of care to the elderly has gone.

“The people I look after tell me they feel like they’re a nuisance because they are living too long.

“I overheard one resident say ‘I can’t believe our husbands fought in the war for us to be treated like this.’

“Not one of our residents has been consulted so they don’t know what’s going on. To close all the council-run care homes takes away a safety net.

“As carers we feel that the council are trying to abdicate all responsibility for elderly people.

“It may be cheaper to keep elderly people in their own home, but I don’t feel it’s safer.

“What if the private sector put the prices up and the budgets can’t cover this cost, will the family have to pay?

“Taking away social services is not giving people a choice.”

A spokesman for Wirral’s Department of Adult Social Services said: “There are no ‘plans’ or ‘proposals’ contained in the consultation document, but a series of options which we have been consulting on.

“Cabinet were very clear when they considered this research project that they would not arrive at any view until they had heard what views there were. “The options for Poulton House and Pensall House (outlined in the enquiry) similarly are options that we have been seeking views on.

“We will next be reporting to Cabinet on November 26.”

.

© copyright Birkenhead News. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Decision on repayment to overcharged vulnerable people put off by Wirral Council

2009-11-04T13:50:00.001Z

Liverpool Daily Post by Liam Murphy,

WIRRAL council last night put off making a decision on repaying vulnerable people overcharged while in its care.

Last night’s second meeting of the audit committee was meant to consider a report after consultation with the social services whistleblower Martin Morton.

The September meeting of the authority’s audit committee was told the council allowed a “coordinated cover-up and serious malpractice” over a special charging policy for vulnerable people in its care. The committee is trying to establish how far back it has to look to repay those overcharged.

But Tory Leah Fraser repeatedly insisted the meeting could no continue as the report said no input into the overcharging had been obtained from Mr Morton.

Cllr Fraser said Mr Morton had not been given enough time to respond.

The committee agreed to meet again on November 25 to see if the report can be completed with Mr Morton's help, or if he needs more time.
.

© copyright Liverpol Daily Post. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.
.

Wirral Council whistleblower 'bullying' inquiry to go ahead

2009-11-04T07:30:00.000Z

Wirral Globe - by Craig Manning »

WIRRAL council has rejected calls for an independent inquiry into allegations of the overcharging of vulnerable adults in care.

In September this year, the authority’s audit and risk management committee discussed a report which confirmed that 15 people had been overcharged to the sum of £116,000 between 2003 and 2006.

It recommended that those affected were reimnbursed.

The committee was meeting again on Tuesday night to consider a further report from the director of adult social services which gave information on charging that took place between 1997-2003.

Based on its finding, the committee was expected make a decision on whether those affected at this time will also get their money back.

During a meeting of Wirral’s full council on Monday, Conservative Cllr Simon Mountney tabled a notice of motion in which he called for an independent review of the over-charging cases.

He said: "The council must be responsible for what it has put the public through.

"If this council does not act, it will be responsible for condoning the financial abuse it put people through."

It was agreed that an independent investigation will be made into allegations of bullying made by former social services manager Martin Morton, the whistleblower whose concerns about overcharging were revealed exclusively in the Globe on November 5 last year.

Labour Cllr Denise Roberts said there was no need for further investigation into overcharging.

She added: "A number of key reports have been produced.

"We are not dealing with internal fraud, decisions taken in malice or corruption.

"We are dealing with a mess that needs to be sorted out.

"We are dealing with decisions that were intended to improve the life of those in supported living.

"We are dealing with people who tried to do the best job they could, but the best job wasn’t good enough.

"There were clear financial frailties which need to be recognised.

"We need to ensure that these frailties do not happen again.

"It’s also right and proper that any individual who was overcharged is repaid."

.

© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

COUNCILLORS NAMED AND SHAMED

2009-11-03T10:10:00.004Z

Council Meeting
Monday, 2nd November, 2009 6.15 pm

MOVING OF MOTION
Councillor Simon Mountney, when moving the motion said:

Every member or Officer of the Council is bound by a code of conduct.

Additionally, the department of Adult Social Services Managing Information and Knowledge policy document details specific responsibilities within that department.

When these codes are seriously breached or ignored both Officers and members alike lay themselves open to serious charges of misconduct in a public office. This can occur when someone wilfully neglects to perform their duty. This is a very serious issue.

In the year 2000 Mr Martin Morton, the Whistleblower, and at that time an employee of this council, first brought the unlawful and illegal over-charging of adults with learning disabilities at three properties in Moreton to the attention of senior managers within the Department of Adult Social services. He did this in accordance with the Code of Practice for social workers, of which, he was a practicing member and the Councils own Adult Protection Procedures.

Over the next eight years as he fought to protect the rights of those vulnerable and exposed individuals we as a council had entrusted into his care he was continually told his concerns were unfounded. Despite his continued allegations that individuals within his area of care were being subjected to continuing financial abuse both by Council and Private providers he was not only ignored by senior management but attempts were made to forcibly silence his concerns. This escalated into Bullying, Isolation and Hospitalisation. He was ostracized, forced to resign his post and made so ill that he considered suicide.

Throughout this entire episode Mr Morton is the only person who has acted with honesty, integrity and objectivity.

He was the only person to express concern at the mistreatment of vulnerable people and by his actions was the only person in this whole sordid saga to have his career destroyed.

Having been thwarted from resolving this issue from within by senior officers who have an attitude of “ I don’t care if I’m wrong I’m aloud to be” he was forced into becoming a Whistleblower. Via the Audit Commission, Mr Morton, raised his issues with an outside body who for the very first time, they listened to what he had to say and substantiated his claims. Throughout this period it appears that the department rather than attempting to right some of the wrongs done to many vulnerable people in its care, attempted to consistently and disturbingly cover up this issue.

From the outside it appears that a level of obfuscation and, and I use the word having given it great consideration, lies have been used to cover up this issue that is only now being unravelled to reveal the truth. It was initially reported by a senior officer within the department that “there was no outstanding financial liability” around this issue. The Director, then having had more than a month to arrive at some further figures reported to ARMC that some £78,000 was the limit of that liability. That figure now appears woefully short of the correct total.

Issues surrounding Balls Road were never at the heart of the PIDA process, it is the Director of DASS, who 12 months ago initially reported issues around 5 individuals living at Balls Road who it appears have been subject to an anomaly. Then it was reported by the Director that any reference to Balls Road had been stated in error and internal audit had accepted this, there was therefore no financial liability from Balls Road.
Members will now see that the Director is to take a further report direct to Cabinet regarding the Balls Road anomalies.
This issue has helped to destroyed the remaining semblances of trust the public had in this Council. Both by our actions and inactions this council must be held responsible for what it has put vulnerable people through. We must stop ignoring the powerful evidence be put before us. Should we now as a body chose not to act we will be responsible for condoning the financial abuse of individuals.

1. MOTION: ADULT SOCIAL CARE - PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE
Proposed by Councillor Simon Mountney (7 minutes)
Seconded by Councillor Geoffrey Watt (3 minutes)

(1) This Council recognises that a number of concerns were raised by a Council ‘whistleblower’ in October 2007 under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which in turn has resulted in the Audit Commission issuing Wirral Council with a Public Information Disclosure report.

(2) Council notes the findings of the report:
• Although 30 accredited providers are used by the Council only 12 contracts have been signed and returned by providers.
• No formal arrangements have been established for the contract monitoring of
supported living providers.
• There are no arrangements at present for feedback from service users where there is dissatisfaction with services or where quality standards have not been met.
• There remains a substantial risk that users receiving services from one of the
Councils service providers are being charged unfairly.
• The Council does not always know the actual contributions that the provider rquires service users to contribute for services they provide. Consequently the Council is not in a position to know whether the aggregate of charges levied on
service users by the Council and contributions required by the provider are in
compliance with the guidance of fairer charging. It is not clear who is currently ensuring that these service users are receiving adequate protection for the risk
of financial abuse.

(3) Council notes the fact that these findings had previously been raised with officers of the Council by the whistleblower and, whilst thanking the Audit Commission for the production of this report and bringing the matter out into the open, condemns the fact that the Council’s own procedures are so defective as to have needed the Audit Commission’s intervention to bring them to the notice of the Council and the public.

(4) Council believes that this PIDA report and the Department’s unwillingness to bring to the Council’s attention the whistleblower’s concerns regarding the treatment of those in our care demonstrates a lack of effective governance, management and leadership within the Department.

(5) Therefore this Council instructs the Chief Executive to appoint an independent person of sufficient standing and experience to investigate these matters fully, speedily and rigorously and to bring their findings to the Council’s attention, including any disciplinary action, if required, at the earliest possible occasion.

AMENDMENT
Proposed by Councillor Denise Roberts (7 minutes)
Seconded by Councillor Ron Abbey (3 minutes)

Delete all text after the end of section (2) and replace with the following:

(3) Council notes the serious implications of the findings and recognises that they point to serious management failings in adult social services in the past over a long period of time. Council acknowledges these findings and notes that the Director of Adult Social Services has prepared a report addressing these failings and their consequences and that this will be presented to Audit and Risk Management Committee on 3rd November.

(4) In relation to allegations of bullying of the whistleblower, Council notes and supports Cabinets decision to instruct the Director of Law HR and Asset Management to commence an investigation into the treatment of the individual, in relation to allegations of bullying. Council also notes that an outside, independent person will conduct this investigation.

(5) Council welcomes the Audit & Risk Management Committee recommendation to reimburse service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road Moreton, between April 2003 and February 2006.

(6) Council also notes that the audit and risk management committee will tomorrow (3 November 2009) receive a report providing further information with respect to the charging that took place between the period 1997 - 2003, and based on that will make a recommendation on whether re-imbursement will take place for that period.

AMENDMENT
Proposed by Councillor Leah Fraser (7 minutes)
Seconded by Councillor Jeff Green (3 minutes)

In addition to the existing Conservative Notice of Motion add the following:

(6) This Council recognises that the concerns raised by Mr Martin Morton in October 2007 under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and earlier to Senior Officers, are both well-founded and serious.

(7) Council further notes that in the twelve months since the PIDA was published

(a) It has now been established that a vulnerable group of people with learning disabilities in the care of this Council were unlawfully financially abused by this Council over many years. The full extent of this financial abuse and the level of unlawfulness is yet to be established, however, the original figure of £78,499.62 first quoted by the Director of DASS is now recognised as woefully short of the total amount improperly obtained from the residents within our care.

(b) Despite the contributions made by Directors and the most senior officers in its production, the most recent report by Internal Audit has gone only part of the way to revealing the truth. What is much clearer is that much of the evidence presented by Mr Morton and all of his relevant knowledge of this ongoing financial abuse has been ignored or mistakenly omitted from the report.

(c) This Council continues to applaud the efforts of Mr Martin Morton in attempting to ensure that the full extent of the financial abuse and wrong doing is brought into the open

(d) Council expresses its concern that the Cabinet member for Adult and Social Care is yet to make a full comment to the Audit committee or Council regarding how aware she was of this situation and why she had not taken any action prior to the publication of the PIDA report.

(e) Therefore this Council requests that the Chief Executive, in conjunction with the three party leaders selects a person of suitable standing, who is totally independent and fully qualified to carry out a full public inquiry into the PIDA report, in order to draw this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Right of reply: Councillor Simon Mountney (7 minutes)
In his reply, Councillor Mountney named Councillors who had knowledge of the unlawful charging policy in 2005 and have therefore been a party to the cover-up.

NAMED & SHAMED

Pat Williams - Liberal Democrat
18 January 2005 - chaired Social Care & Health Select Committee
14 February 2005 - chaired Social Care & Health Select Committee
22nd August 2005 - The LibDem member of the Charging Policy Consultation Group
July 2007 - chairing Martin Morton's grievance hearing, she allowed him to be bullied and threatened by senior officers, followed by briefing by Kevin Miller and Maura Noone.
2007 - told by a carer about the identical financial abuse of adults with learning disabilities by a private provider.

Denise Roberts - Labour
18 January 2005 - Social Care & Health Select Committee
14 February 2005 - Social Care & Health Select Committee
22 August 2005 - Charging Policy Consultation Group

Steve Foulkes - Labour
1 December 2005 - Cabinet

Moira McLaughlin - Labour
18 January 2005 - Social Care & Health Select Committee
1 December 2005 - Cabinet

Ann Bridson - Liberal Democrat
18 January 2005 - Social Care & Health Select Committee
14 February 2005 - Social Care & Health Select Committee

Labour and Lib/Dem members just did not want to know, and the Labour amendment was carried.

Cllr Jeff Green warned them that the truth will come out as soon as there is a political change in either the Council or nationally.
.
© copyright Wirral Borough Council. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

SPECIAL MEETING AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT - TONIGHT

2009-11-03T06:37:00.000Z

Special Meeting
Audit and Risk Management Committee

Tuesday, 3rd November, 2009 6.15 pm

Agenda reports pack PDF 3 MB

Venue:
Committee Room 1
Wallasey Town Hall. View directions

Contact:
Mark Delap Senior Committee Officer

AGENDA:

2. Minutes
To receive the minutes of the special meeting of the Committee held on 23 September 2009.

The minutes are so flawed and incomplete that many protests have been made by members of the public. here and here

3. Adult Social Services - Charging Policy - Service Users Residing at "In House" Supported Living Units during the period 1997 to 2003
Additional documents:
Appendix Index, item 3.
Appendix 1, item 3.
Appendix 2, item 3.
Appendix 3, item 3.
Appendix 4, item 3.
Appendix 5, item 3.
Appendix 6, item 3.

4. Progress Report on Action Plan in relation to Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) Additional documents:
Appendix, item 4.

5. Charging Arrangements for Supported Living in Wirral 1997 to 2003

As is to be expected, all the above contain lies, damned lies and statistics. If any reader is aware of specific lies, please contact Veridici in the strictest of confidence (anonymously if preferred).

6. Any Other Urgent Business Approved by the Chair

.

© copyright Wirral Borough Council. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Wirral council faces grilling over ‘special charging’ policy

2009-11-02T09:22:00.001Z

Liverpool Daily Post by Liam Murphy

WIRRAL Council will tonight face demands for an independent investigation into how vulnerable people in the local authority’s care remain unprotected from “financial abuse”.

The demand comes just a day before the second meeting of a committee which will consider claims that vulnerable people were overcharged and then the case covered up.

A September meeting of the authority’s audit committee was told the council allowed a “co-ordinated cover-up and serious malpractice” over a special charging policy for vulnerable people in its care.

The allegations were made by former social services employee Martin Morton who also told the committee he had been bullied out of his job after raising concerns about the so-called Special Charging Policy, which was applied at council-run establishments for vulnerable people in Wirral from 1997.

Mr Morton has been backed by Conservative councillor Simon Mountney who will tonight be pressing for an independent investigation into the case.

A notice of motion to full council said: “There remains a substantial risk that users receiving services from one of the council’s service providers are being charged unfairly.”

The motion also said: “It is not clear who is currently ensuring that these service users are receiving adequate protection from the risk of financial abuse.”

At the last audit committee a long-awaited report to councillors admitted certain charges were unlawful and that 15 vulnerable people were overcharged a total of £116,000.

However, Mr Moreton insisted the figures were much higher, and the committee agreed to meet again after officers investigated this, including comparing Wirral’s charges with other authorities.

The report to Tuesday’s committee said: “Some charges are comparable with Wirral's and the maximum charge of one approximated to Wirral's average for the period 1997/1998 to 2002/2003 which was £78.

“The approximate average for the other authorities is £45.”

The report added: “Some of those (councils) who made comments on Wirral's charging policy were critical of the level and considered it high.”

Mr Morton said: “The amounts the council has said it owes has gone up from nothing to £78,000, to £116,000 to £234,000, and it will still go higher. If I had not persisted they would not have agreed to pay anything, and I’m determined they should pay back everything they owe.”

.

© copyright Liverpool Daily Post. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Email trail:- Martin Morton / Gerry Flanagan

2009-10-18T15:34:00.006+01:00

This email has been made available to the site by Martin Morton

From: Flanagan, Gerry P.
Sent: Fri 25/01/2008 17:40
To: Morton, Anthony M.
Cc: Ryan, Thomas; Noone, Maura C.; Webb, John H.; Coleman, Ian E.; Bradshaw, Paul
Subject: RE: Re Severance

Martin

Thank you for your e-mail

I am available on Monday morning at 9.30 to discuss your work plan.

I will seek advice from HR on the other issues you raise

Gerry Flanagan
Joint Commissioning Manager for Learning Disabilities
Wirral Council
Department of Adult Social Services and Wirral Primary Care Trust
Tel: 0151 666 4780
gerryflanagan@wirral.gov.uk
Fax: 0151 666 4747

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

From: Morton, Anthony M.
Sent: 25 January 2008 17:04
To: Flanagan, Gerry P.
Cc: Ryan, Thomas; Noone, Maura C.; Webb, John H.; Coleman, Ian E.; Bradshaw, Paul
Subject: RE: Re Severance

Gerry

As ever this is far from a resolution.

As my line manager have you any idea what I have been doing the entire week?.Typing a set of minutes, a 1 page report and putting leaflets into folders for the Valuing People Now event next week (the latter under the supervision of an admittedly very able Scale 3 Team Support Officer).

As each and every day has passed I have found myself getting more and more distressed by the covert and overt "mobbing" that I am having to endure as a whistleblower.

I have included the Officers identified in the final line of your email as these people seem to be responsible for making the decisions about my severance.I need to impress upon you that I do not want my life to be left languishing in somebody's in-tray for months on end.My position has moved from the untenable to the unbearable......

The derisory sum of money being offered is compensation for the detriment already incurred.A gagging clause in the guise of a "compromise agreement" is a new detriment and will thus have to be compensated separately and in addition.

The sum offered does not reflect the scale of wrongdoing the Council is trying to hide.I believe that there are matters concerning waste of public money,failure to protect vulnerable people from abuse ,charging policies (!) and bullying that are of interest to the Audit Commission,CSCI,Ombudsman,Standards Board For England (and assuming that Mr.Bradshaw and Mr.Ryan are members,CIPD).How is it then deemed appropriate that I lose my entire career (22 years in social care/education),my livelihood,my health and potentially my home because I have brought matters to the Council's attention that have sought to suppress ...and suppress ruthlessly.

My treatment as an employee and as a person has been a complete violation,therefore to prevent a worsening of my physical and mental health and an avoidance of legal proceedings I am insisting that this matter is finally resolved to my satisfaction by February 1st 2008.

Martin

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

From: Flanagan, Gerry P.
Sent: Mon 21/01/2008 15:37
To: Morton, Anthony M.
Cc: Ryan, Thomas; Noone, Maura C.
Subject: Re Severance

Martin

You indicated to me this morning that you wanted a resolution to the situation by today. Whilst I would have preferred to discuss this with you face to face, you have just indicated to me that you wanted me to respond by e-mail rather than in a discussion.

The response I have had from HR is that your severance pay would be £23641.00 approx.; any offer would be linked to a compromise agreement.

I am further informed that such severance would be subject to approval by the Director, the Director of Finance and Head of Corporate HR.

Gerry Flanagan
Joint Commissioning Manager for Learning Disabilities
Wirral Council
Department of Adult Social Services and Wirral Primary Care Trust
Tel: 0151 666 4780
gerryflanagan@wirral.gov.uk
Fax: 0151 666 4747

© Reproduced by kind permission of Martin Morton
.

Cost of investigation and disciplinary process re senior council officers

2009-10-15T20:38:00.002+01:00

M Smith has responded to Wirral Council

Dear Ms Corrin,

Thank you for your reply.

I would be grateful if you would kindly ascertain whether or not this independent investigation was carried out by Mr Vic Hewitt.
Also, could you kindly obtain confirmation that he was appointed in late November or early December 2008.

I am reliably informed that the Director of Law may be able to help you with this inquiry as he may have inforrmation which has not been made available to you

I await the result of your enquiries into Mr Morton's solicitor's fees with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Cost of investigation and disciplinary process re senior council officers

2009-10-15T11:13:00.001+01:00

Wirral Council has responded to M Smith's FOI request as follows:

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email below. I will take each point you have raised in turn and hope you find the information of use.

You would have to contact North West Employers regarding whether they subcontracted any work to Vic Hewitt Consulting Ltd. The requests we receive under FOI relate to any recorded information we hold as a Public Body and the recorded invoices we hold are for North West Employers.

Additionally, we do not have estimates recorded of the working hours of our Solicitors against individual casework.

Your final point is noted, regarding Mr Morton stating that his solicitor's fees were paid by the Council and I will make enquiries in relation to this and get back to you on this point.

Kind Regards

Email from Natasha Eubank to Cllr Paula Southwood

2009-10-13T21:43:00.005+01:00

The following email has been made available to this site by Natasha Eubank.

-----Original Message-----
From: natashaeubank@xxxxxxxx
To: paulasouthwood@wirral.gov.uk
Cc: annbridson@wirral.gov.uk; jimcrabtree@wirral.gov.uk; leahfraser@wirral.gov.uk; simonholbrook@wirral.gov.uk; simonmountney@wirral.gov.uk; jeanquinn@wirral.gov.uk; lesleyrennie@wirral.gov.uk; peterreisdorf@wirral.gov.uk; johnsalter@wirral.gov.uk; m-thomas@audit-commission.gov.uk; l-temple-murray@audit-commission.gov.uk; billnorman@wirral.gov.uk
Sent: Mon, Oct 12, 2009 9:01 am
Subject: ARMC 'Special Meeting' 23rd September Minutes

Councillor Southwood,

Having just read the minutes of the special ARMC meeting of the 23rd September, I felt compelled to write to you.

I was in attendance at this meeting, or at least I thought I was. Judging by the contents of the minutes I must have been in some form of temporary fugue state. As the contents of those minutes bear no resemblance on any level, to my recollection of the evenings proceedings.

I have no doubt that you have already been contacted by those who also feel strongly about this matter, highlighting the stark omissions of said minutes. (In much the same way that I have no doubt that Mr. Delaps work received the most personal attention, much more so than normal, of Mr. Norman) I will therefore not reiterate the discrepancies.

My comments are of a more empirical nature.

I find it incomprehensible that, even now, a number of Chief Officers and Councillors, you included, are persisting in compounding the already-catastrophic damage that this situation has wrought. It is precisely this high-handedness and arrogance which has led to this most heinous of situations.

The majority of Councillors have shown nothing but contempt, in their treatment of us. The cover-up; the lifting of the suspension of Noone and Fowler; the disgraceful IA report, the dubious commissioning of the independent investigation, the complete inability to take any decisive restorative action, the positively supernatural convenience of the appearance of the 1997 Committee report.

And now, now we get minutes, minutes that have been sanitised to such an extent that Herr Josef Goebbels (Propaganda Minister for the Third Reich, in case the reference was missed) would glow with pride.

For every second that passes in which the Councillors take no decisive, objective and final action over this matter (and that includes, but is necessarily limited to; the dismissal of Maura Noone and Mike Fowler and the reimbursement, in an appropriate form, of the monies taken from the most vulnerable amongst us, backdated to 1997) you make a mockery of the trust we have put in you as elected members.

For every minute that elapses where you fail to act, you prove that, as a body of people, you are more willing to smother and stifle an unpleasant and embarrassing truth, rather than put it right.

It’s all too easy, isn’t it? It’s all too easy when the victims of this overcharging are simply represented as quantities in committee briefings. If you can’t put a face to a name, then it doesn’t matter, does it?

And to think, these are the most vulnerable, the most socially excluded amongst us.

You sicken me.

And then, then the Whistleblower.

Permit me to be presumptuous. By reinstating Mrs. Noone and Mr. Fowler you are, in effect, demonstrating your support for two individuals who, and let us call a spade a spade, were more willing to persecute an employee, rather than admit that they are responsible for committing, what is effectively, institutional financial abuse against people with learning disabilities.

If that does not appeal to your moral values, then let me appeal to your ego.

They, by intending to get approval of a policy during the ‘political downtime’ (taken from the email transcripts on areallrottenboroughblogspot.com) clearly do not regard you as anything more than ‘head-nodders’. People who do not have the ability or intelligence to understand what is written down in front of them.

Perhaps that might elicit a more significant response?

Either way, these two people, who have inflicted the most despicable damage on, people with learning disabilities, a man whose only goals was to stop the financial abuse of said people and the reputation of Wirral Council, are people you have shown you allegiance to.

Perhaps understandingly, I question your character judging abilities.

I have neglected to mention Mr. Webb’s complicity in the actions of Noone and Fowler. Whilst I appreciate that Mr. Webb was not in post as Director until comparatively recently, he has also shown himself to consider that the cover-up of financial abuse by his senior officers and the persecution of an duty-bound employee are more palatable actions than telling the truth is.

And these are the people who have been charged with the responsibility of looking after Wirrals most vulnerable people.

Inspiring, isn’t it?

Mr. Norman did not consider that a police investigation into the actions of DASS, in this instance was appropriate. He took, what seemed to be about 2 nanoseconds, before providing us with his considered response. This was accepted by you wholesale, in an equally embarrassingly short span of time.

Let me draw you to the CPS guidelines for quantifying the act of misconduct in a public office.

The elements of misconduct in public office are:

a) A public officer acting as such.

b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.

c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.

d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.

John Webb, Maura Noone and Mike Fowler have abused the public trust.

For that matter, you also have abused the public’s trust.

Put this right.

Put this right, otherwise it will be this that defines your political career. Nothing else. No good that you might have done, or will do, for the residents of Wirral will be remembered. It will be this. And only this.

Put this right.

And don’t even get me started about a particular external supported-living provider.

You’re in for a busy time.

Natasha Eubank

© Reproduced with kind permission of Natasha Eubank.
.

Special Audit & Risk Management Committee meeting-FOLLOW-UP

2009-10-12T09:12:00.001+01:00

The follow-up meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee is currently scheduled for 3 November 2009, when results of further investigations into the Special Charging Policy will be discussed.

It will also be an opportunity for the amendment of the minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2009.

This date is not yet confirmed on the Council's website.

.

.

Email from The Loose Cannon to ARMC members

2009-10-09T22:40:00.000+01:00

The following email has been made available to this site by 'The Loose Cannon':

----- Original Message -----
From: The Loose Cannon
To: Southwood, Paula M. (Councillor)
Cc: simonmountney@wirral.gov.uk ; markdelap@wirral.gov.uk ; billnorman@wirral.gov.uk ; lesleyrennie@wirral.gov.uk ; jeanquinn@wirral.gov.uk ; annbridson@wirral.gov.uk ; johnsalter@wirral.gov.uk ; peterreisdorf@wirral.gov.uk ; simonholbrook@wirral.gov.uk ; jeffgreen@wirral.gov.uk ; leahfraser@wirral.gov.uk ; jimcrabtree@wirral.gov.uk
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:38 PM
Subject: Draft minutes ARMC.

Dear Paula,

Minutes are the official, written record of a meeting, but having read the lastest draft minutes of the ARMC we cannot believe it was the meeting we attended. We are appalled that Bill Norman and Mark Delap are treating members of the public with such open contempt.

Instead of a record of the proceedings they have offered a public relations document that simply paraphrases the (erroneous) findings of the internal audit report.

How deceitful, when someone has been allowed to address the committee, to then ignore every single point made by them. It smacks of Stalinist Russia rather than the Wirral we know.

Why no mention of the allegations of hardship suffered by at least one tenant, solely due to the unlawful special charging policy - a man with learning disabilities who had to go to the Welfare Fund for money for clothes?

Why no mention of the fifteen reasons Martin Morton gave for the special charging policy being unfair - something the Department of Health clearly believed, hence the Fairer Charging Policy - yet Bill Norman's 'opinon' is allowed to prevail?

Why no mention of Martin's allegation that, contrary to the report, the residents at the three properties were NOT assessed, and that they were charged according to their means and not according to their needs, which is unlawful.

Why no mention that Martin alleged it was untrue to claim the special charging policy was intended to be applied elsewhere?

Why no mention that the members of the public present, as well as the Conservative councillors, clearly did not believe the explanations about the document 'found in DASS' and made their feelings known?

Why no mention of Cllr Mountney's question about financial abuse at Balls Road?

Why no mention that Martin refuted the claim he had not mentioned Balls Road in his Grievance/Whistleblowing documents? Or the excerpt he read from them?

Why no mention that Martin quoted an email from his Grievance/Whistleblowing documents, as did Cllr Mountney, which clearly shows that two Assistant Directors of DASS, Mike Fowler and Maura Noone, were aware the special charging policy was unfair in February 2000? You must surely have known it was the email which Cllr Mountney gave to Bill Norman last year, prompting their suspension. If you weren't, how duplicitous of Bill Norman not to confirm its authenticity to you. In fact, how duplicitous of him not to confirm its authenticity to the Committee.

Why no mention of Martin's allegations of bullying?

Below "It was further moved by Councillor Mountney and seconded by Councillor Fraser that ..." the minutes read:
(a) Implement the principle of reimbursement of service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road Moreton, between 1997 and 2003 in so far as the sums actually paid by an individual service user exceeded what they might reasonably have been required to pay had the principles contained in Fairer Charging been applied throughout that period ...

Although this may be what the Council would prefer, it is not correct. Cllr Mountney called for the reimbursement of all monies paid by service users at the three properties in so far as the sums actually paid by them exceeded what other service users in the borough were paying at the time, which was nothing.

Finally, why no mention that you refused the offer made by the Audit Commission to investigate 1997-2003?
You have had first-hand experience of the duplicity of Lester Roughley; you know he lied to committee regarding the information I had given him; you are aware that a file containing all the special charging policy documents was handed to him in DASS, prior to the April meeting, which subsequently appears to have mysteriously vanished, yet you made the decision to put the investigation back in his hands. In our opinion it is not the chairman's place to make unilateral decisions, and you certainly did not gain the confidence of the public present.

While on the subject of your handling of the meeting, we felt you were not objective, as any chairman should be, but far too biased towards your own party line. We were very disappointed that you put your political allegiance above humanity and inconvenient truths.

Sincerely,
(signed)

© Reproduced with kind permission of The Loose Cannon.
.

to all who attended the Special Audit & Risk Management meeting

2009-10-07T19:09:00.007+01:00

The draft minutes of the ARMC have been published today. They can be found HERE.

Martin Morton's contribution to the meeting is summed up in one paragraph:

With the agreement of the Chair, Mr Morton addressed the Committee. He expressed concern in relation to some of the findings of the audit, in particular that the policy approved in 1997 was reasonable and thus lawful. Mr Morton pointed out that it had been implemented without consultation.

And that's it!

If you were present on 23 September, and believe that the minutes are a travesty, please make your comments and feelings known to all of the following:

The Director of Law - billnorman@wirral.gov.uk
ARMC clerk Mark Delap - markdelap@wirral.gov.uk
The following Councillors were all present at the meeting and must be fully aware that the minutes are not a true reflection of the meeting:

Cllr Ann Bridson - annbridson@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Jim Crabtree - jimcrabtree@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Leah Fraser - leahfraser@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Jeff Green - jeffgreen@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Simon Holbrook - simonholbrook@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Simon Mountney - simonmountney@wirral.gov.uk
Jean Quinn - jeanquinn@wirral.gov.uk
Lesley Rennie - lesleyrennie@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Peter Reisdorf - peterreisdorf@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr John Salter - johnsalter@wirral.gov.uk
Cllr Paula Southwood - paulasouthwood@wirral.gov.uk
District Auditor and Auditor for Wirral were also present

Mike Thomas - m-thomas@audit-commission.gov.uk
Liz Temple-Murray - l-temple-murray@audit-commission.gov.uk

The press who have been covering the story and/or were present:

Justin Dunn - jdunn@wirral-globe.co.uk
Craig Manning - cmanning@wirral-globe.co.uk
Lee Marles - lmarles@wirral-globe.co.ukLiam Murphy - liammurphy@liverpoolecho.co.uk
For far too long Martin Morton has carried this fight single-handed. Now is the time for the people of Wirral to show he is not a lone voice in the wilderness.

The Council taxpayers of Wirral pay these people's wages. Make them work for you.

Write now and demand the minutes be amended. Demand an external inquiry, an independent external inquiry. Demand the police be called in.
.

© excerpts copyright Wirral Council. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

A drop in the ocean

2009-10-02T00:24:00.002+01:00

In June it was revealed that Wirral Council paid £20,000 in barrister's fees, for two days work, and the Council Taxpayers were incensed.

That sum is but a drop in the ocean when viewed alongside the costs surrounding the Whistleblower, DASS Special Charging Policy investigation and PIDA report.

Whistleblower's Compromise Agreement payment - £45,000

Whistleblower legal fees - £10,809.50
Wirral Council has been paying the Whistleblower's legal fees since the commencement of the disciplinary inquiry.

Independent investigation - £14,678.95
Yesterday Wirral Council revealed in response to a Freedom of Information request that the independent investigation into the "Employee A" and "Employee B" farce cost £14,678.95 (including VAT).

PIDA report - £15,250 and rising
The Audit Commission's PIDA (Public Interest Disclosure Act) report cost £15,250 in 2007/8, although the Audit & Governance Report which was presented to the Audit & Risk Management meeting on 23rd September reveals two things - extra costs incurred on the Whistleblower PIDA, and a second PIDA currently under investigation.

Audit Fees
8 My fee proposals were communicated to you in my Audit Plan for 2008/09. I issued a supplementary fee letter to the Director of Finance on 28 July indicating that the original fee was appropriate and no adjustment was required. However, the letter highlights that work on the PIDA concerning DASS has continued this year and we have received another PIDA in respect of a major contract. These issues were not anticipated when the fee was set in June 2008 and we have previously agreed that we will charge an additional fee when we complete the 2008/09 work.

These four items alone total £85,738.45 and there's more - much more - to come.

.

.

Commissioning of independent investigation

2009-10-01T15:29:00.000+01:00

A Freedom of Information request has been made by Natasha Eubank, as follows:

I would be grateful if you could provide me with the following information

Details of any primary legislation or other statutory instrument that Wirral Council must comply with, when commissioning independent investigations.

Wirral Councils own policy on the commissioning of independent investigations.

A link to the minutes of the relevant Council Meeting showing endorsement of this policy.

Details of the procurement / purchasing conditions that the Council must comply with, when commissioning an independent investigation.

In reference to the investigation of over-charging in DASS supported accommodation, the basis by which the independent investigators were selected.

The designations of the Council Officers responsible for selecting the independent investigators.

In reference to the investigation of over-charging in DASS supported accommodation, any briefings, background papers etc. (with appropriate deletions in order to comply with DPA) that were issued as part of the commissioning / procurement of the independent investigation. In particular any document which clairifies the remit and scope of the independent investigation.

I would be grateful if you could confirm acknowledgment of this FOIA Request

Thanking you in advance for your time

The request has been acknowledged by Wirral Council.

.

.

Misconduct in public office

2009-10-01T13:38:00.000+01:00

The Crown Prosecution Service defines Misconduct in public office as follows:

The elements of misconduct in public office are:

a) A public officer acting as such.

b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.

c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.

d) Without reasonable excuse or justification

It continues, to define the Charging Practice:

Like perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office covers a wide range of conduct. It should always be remembered that it is a very serious, indictable only offence* carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A charge of misconduct in public office should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or deliberate failure to perform a duty which is likely to injure the public interest.

* an "indictable only offence" may only be tried in the Crown Court.

The day will come.

.

© copyright Crown Prosecution Service. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

"Why I did it."

2009-09-30T12:59:00.000+01:00

Whistleblower talks of the powerful sense of injustice that led him to expose a scandal - and how the stress landed him in hospital.

Wirral Globe - by Justin Dunn

This is the Whistleblower who claims Wirral Council systematically overcharged vulnerable adults in its care for years.

Martin Morton agreed to be named, to explain why he has spent eight years trying to force the council to "take responsibility" and admist its mistakes.

The former Supported Living Development Officer for the Borough's Social Services Department says he is "disgusted" that the Council only last week conceded that it did owe more than £100,000 to care residents - despite previously insisting it did not.

"We were constantly being told by senior officers that we needed 'to be the voice of the otherwise excluded' - but when I tried to be just that they ignored me" said Martin. "It is just rhetoric. The problem is they don't like an oik like me pointing out a problem because they always have to know best. But they didn't know best, and the longer this is dragged out, the more damage they do to the local authority."

He insisted "this is not about me - it's about doing the right thing by the very people the Council is there to care for."

In a speech to Council last week, Martin explained that his treatment by bosses led such great stress that he had to be hospitalised.

The Council has said it will send a letter of apology to Martin. It has also launched a separate investigation into the alleged bullying.

.

© copyright Wirral Globe . Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

... we can’t bury our head in the sand for too much longer ...

2009-09-30T12:58:00.003+01:00

The following email trail has been made available to this site, but not by Martin Morton. Only the text is shown rather than the actual documents complete with names.

1. "Employee B" (Assistant Director, DASS) to Xxxxx Xxxxxx (Principal Manager, Domicilary Care)

19 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

How much money are we talking about
a. reimbursing
b. not collecting on a weekly basis.

I am further disturbed by the staff at West wirral complaining about this. can I have some more details please.

------------------------------------------------------------
2. Xxxxx Xxxxxx to Martin Morton

19 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

Can you respond to the attached please.
Xxxxx

------------------------------------------------------------
3. Martin Morton to Xxxxx Xxxxxx and "Employee B"; cc to Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx

23 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

Information as requested:
weekly charges amount to £1031.70 (£53,648 p.a). The amount of money involved in reimbursement back to April 2003 would be approximately 48 weeks as at the end of the week. This would amount to £49,521.60. This sum may be seen as damage limitation as technically it could be argued that reimbursement should be backdated to December 1997 which would involve much larger sums.

My understanding of the difficulties which staff encounter in West Wirral is having to manage disproportionate charges within the same service as Fellowship House tenants are charged £25 “all in” (inc. food and utilities). Whereas the rest of West Wirral are charged the above amount and pay for own food and contribute towards utility bills.

If you require further information please let me know.

Thanks,
Martin

------------------------------------------------------------
4. "Employee B" to "Employee A" (Assistant Director, DASS)

23 February 2004
Subject: FW. Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

What do you think?

------------------------------------------------------------
5. "Employee A" to "Employee B"

24 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

Once we go for a ‘reimbursement’ the cover’s blown. However we can’t bury our head in the sand for too much longer as the charging review group will start soon (it could be better to leave it to that group to consider?) In the meantime there is ‘unfairness’ in the system hence my advice to Breda to consider the broader issues in AMT.

By the book:- there is no separate charging policy for this service, so it could be argued the domiciliary care charging policy must apply (and should have since ‘97), and that will mean a hefty reimbursement.

I would suggest we go to the Cabinet in the political down time (May-June) to get agreement for a ‘special charging policy’ for supported living as part of the budget strategy.... and that this policy maintains the status quo in financial terms but does so more fairly. I would also suggest the impact on individuals and groups in certain living situations are considered in more depth as I was left thinking the charging practice was very diverse and almost locally determined by individual staff (although I could be wrong there).

Xxxx

------------------------------------------------------------
6. "Employee B" to Xxxxx Xxxxxx

24 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

Xxxxx, to follow on. We should maintain the current position for the moment. There will be a group set up shortly to address this and other charging issues.This will report in to Cabinet with recommendations.At that point we will stop/start charging as necessary.With other clients who no longer have to pay charges,they are not reimbursed for charges they have paid in the past.This group will be similarly affected (nor do we demand back payment for people who were not charged in the post but who now have to pay).

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

So, perhaps Cllrs Phil Davies, Sheila Clarke and Chris Teggin would like to explain to the Council tax payers of Wirral how they managed to exonerate "Employee B" and write to "Employee A" and why they are still in post.

© copyright the authors. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Cost of investigation and disciplinary process re senior council officers-UPDATE

2009-09-29T18:59:00.001+01:00

Today there was a flurry of emails regarding this Freedom of Information request on the What Do They Know website:

M Smith to Wirral Borough Council:

Wirral Borough Council is breaking the law, as it has not responded to my Freedom of Information request within the allotted period.

I am extremely dissatisfied that I have not even received an acknowledgement of my request, and I now request an internal review of the Council's handling of it.

My FOI request is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
Yours faithfully

---------------------------------------------------------------
Wirral Borough Council to M Smith:

Good Morning,
Apologies for the delay in responding, you are correct that your request is overdue as it was due up yesterday. I will make further enquiries and get back to you today regarding the progress of your request.
The Council does not routinely acknowledge requests and it is not a requirement of the legislation to do so. If a requestor specifically requested an acknowledgement then we would of course send one.
Kind Regards

---------------------------------------------------------------
Wirral Borough Council to M Smith:

Good Afternoon,
Further to my email below. The Independent Investigation was done by the North West Employers, I am just awaiting confirmation of the full amount paid to them and this will be available to me tomorrow. I will then be in a position to email you a full reply, and I thank you for your patience in this matter.
There were no separate associated legal costs, as the legal work was all done in house by Wirral Council Employees.
Kind Regards

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

M Smith to Wirral Borough Council:

Thank you for your belated response.

You say "The Council does not routinely acknowledge requests and it is not a requirement of the legislation to do so."

As you have confirmed, your response, which would have served as an acknowledgement, was overdue, hence my request for a review being prompted by this site.

I await the full details in response to my request with great interest.

Yours sincerely

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

.

.

Wirral's Champion 2009

2009-09-27T20:29:00.000+01:00

The Wirral News is asking for nominations of peoplewho really make a difference in the community.

We have exactly the right candidate in Martin Morton, the Wirral Whistleblower.

What better way could there be of expressing the gratitude andthanks of all of us to him for his bravery and perseverance, and it would be one in the eye for the Council into the bargain!

CLICK HEREto go direct to the nomination form.

Most of us won't know his address or telephone number, but Martin Morton (Wirral Whistleblower)will probably be sufficient for identification.
What about it, folks? Vote, and get everyone who cares to vote too.
.

© copyright Wirral News. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

.

Wirral Council launches investigation into allegation of bullying

2009-09-25T12:49:00.002+01:00

Liverpool Daily Post - by Liam Murphy

WIRRAL Council has launched an investigation into allegations of bullying of a whistleblower which he says forced him to leave his job.

Martin Morton had attempted to make Wirral Council repay money which was taken from vulnerable adults in the authority’s care under a so-called "special charging policy".

Reports by the Audit Commission and an internal investigation revealed that people with severe learning difficulties and disabilities at three council-run establishments had been over charged more than £100,000.

However, an audit committee meeting earlier this week was told the real figures could be much higher.

At the same meeting Mr Morton told councillors of the bullying and isolation imposed on him after he revealed the extent of the over-charging and tried to get the money repaid.

At a meeting of the council’s ruling cabinet last night, Cllr Simon Holbrook led calls for an investigation into Mr Morton’s allegations.

Cllr Simon Mountney, who has backed Mr Morton’s efforts to have the council investigate the overcharging and repay the money said he was "absolutely delighted" at the cabinet decision.

He said: "It’s fantastic - it has taken eight years to get this far, but perhaps we’re getting there now.

"I believe the investigation will further verify Martin’s allegations against the council and hopefully people will see those allegations are all correct and true and people will be repaid back to 1997 when the special charging policy was introduced."

The cabinet agreed to welcome and support the decisions taken by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on September 23.

It also ordered that the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, be instructed to commence an investigation into the treatment of Mr Morton in relation to allegations of bullying.

Cllr Holbrook said: "Cabinet lends its support to the recommendations of the Audit and Risk Management Committee on September 23 in relation to the charging policies in existence in Social Services between 1997 and 2006.

"However, during that meeting Mr Morton made serious allegations with regard to bullying whilst employed by the Council. These allegations are so serious that they cannot be allowed to stand with the Council taking no action on them.

"As Audit and Risk Management Committee did not have the opportunity to address this point, the appropriate response is for Cabinet to order an immediate investigation into these allegations. Such a serious matter requires thorough investigation."

.

© copyright Liverpool Daily Post. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Wirral Council responds to claims of cover-up and malpractice

2009-09-25T08:11:00.001+01:00

4:34 pm Thursday 24th September 2009

Wirral Globe - by Craig Manning

FOLLOWING last night's meeting of Wirral's Audit and Risk Management committee, the council has issued the following response.

"The council recognises that the issues raised by the whistleblower in his initial grievance should have been dealt with more appropriately and sincerely apologises for the stress that it has caused.

"We continue to express our appreciation to him for raising these matters and providing evidence to the investigation.

"Since this investigation began, we have significantly improved internal procedures.

"This includes publicising the grievance and whistleblowing policies so that staff understand their rights to highlight concerns and managers are fully aware of their responsibilities in dealing with such issues.

"The report discussed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee focused on the issues investigated by the Audit Commission, namely the council’s application of the Department of Health’s Fairer Charging Policy and arrangements for the commissioning and monitoring of contracts for supported living and supported people services.

"The committee agreed that the director of Adult Social Services should seek cabinet and or council approval to make appropriate reimbursements dating back to 2003 in cases where service users may have been overcharged.

"In addition to this, further investigation was requested to establish when the council first suspected that service-users were being overcharged. The outcome of this investigation will be considered by members in November."
.

© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-THE SAGA CONTINUES

2009-09-24T19:13:00.001+01:00

'Kane' Corrin, Wirral's Information Manager has responded to J.Locker's request as follows:

Good Afternoon,
I have copied the reduced scope of your request below and have provided Council's response which is:-

There has only been one instance of an employee who has made a whistle blowing complaint subsequently agreeing to terminate his employment. As already explained to you in previous correspondence, the Council cannot disclose the terms on which any employee agrees to terminate his or her employment, this includes any amount of money received by the employee.

There are no separate itemised details, within the Council's Annual accounts that give details of Employees salaries or payments in relation to termination of employment.

The amount of money paid would form part of the Service expenditure heading, for the Department in question, in the Annual Accounts.

Call for a police inquiry rejected as Wirral Council is accused of a major cover-up

2009-09-24T13:13:00.001+01:00

Wirral Globe - by Craig Manning

A call for a police investigation into allegations of a cover-up and serious malpractice following an inquiry into systematic overcharging of people in Wirral Council care was rejected last night.

Feelings ran high as a previously anonymous "whistleblower" broke cover to tell councillors on the scrutiny committee that the authority had all-but ruined his life.

A special meeting of the committee had been called to study an internal audit report on a so-called "special charging policy."

The audit ruled people in “supported living” accommodation from 2003 were overcharged and the policy unlawful.

The overcharging only came to light when former employee Martin Morton blew the whistle and raised the alarm in the Wirral Globe.

Mr Morton addressed the committee and said that he had been bullied out of his job after voicing his concerns.

He said: "It was a systemic failure of vulnerable people and nearly did for me. It was completely unacceptable.

"I regret losing my job, regret that this council made me ill through the appalling stress to me and particularly my wife.

"But I would do it again. I don't want to go to an early grave knowing that the council got away with an appalling abuse of power."

Mr Morton said he was paid £45,000 by the council to "go away and keep quiet."

The stress placed upon him had been so great he had to be hospitalised.

At the end of the two-and-a-half-hour meeting at Wallasey Town Hall, committee members agreed that although overcharging was illegal from 2003, there was insufficient evidence to suggest it was unlawful since its first implementation in 1997.

The committee has called for a further investigation about when overcharging became an issue, and will meet to consider this at the end of the year.

Conservatives pressed for a police inquiry but this was rejected by the Director of Law as there was no evidence to suggest criminal activity.

Cllr Leah Fraser, who called for police to become involved, told the committee: “If the charging was unfair, it’s then unlawful.

"And if it’s unlawful it follows then that it’s illegal. You’ve wrongly taken money from people. I believe there is a matter for the police here.”

The audit report said the “special charging policy” was applied at three care homes in Wirral – but nowhere else in the borough. The policy was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, between 1997 and 2006.

Until April, 2003, the report said, the charges levied were, "on balance," probably reasonable and lawful.

It stated people were overcharged a total of £116,000, with sums ranging from a few hundred pounds to more than £15,000.

A committee minute which had been made in September of 1997 turned up in the last fortnight of the auditors' review and, they wrote, "changed everything" as it proved the charging policy had been officially sanctioned by elected members of the council.

This ruling has been disputed by the Conservative group who claim the minute only sanctioned what was still "unlawful" policy.

The council has agreed to send a letter of apology to Mr Morton for the way he had been treated.

.

© copyright . Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Wirral Council accused of major cover-up

2009-09-24T09:55:00.000+01:00

Liverpool Daily Post - by Liam Murphy

WIRRAL Council allowed a “co-ordinated cover-up and serious malpractice” over a special charging policy for vulnerable people, a committee meeting heard last night.

A special meeting of the authority’s audit committee was held to receive a report into allegations by whistleblower Martin Moreton.

A former employee of adult social services, Mr Moreton told the committee he had been bullied out of his job after raising concerns about the so-called Special Charging Policy, which was applied at council-run establishments for vulnerable people.

After praising Mr Moreton for his honesty and integrity, Cllr Simon Mountney demanded an external investigation and said some residents had been left in such penury by the over-charging that they were forced to get their clothes from charity shops – because their benefits had been largely stripped from them. The long-awaited report to the committee admitted the charges were unlawful. The report said 15 vulnerable people were overcharged a total of £116,000 – with the sums ranging from “a few hundred pounds to over £15,000” – although Mr Moreton insisted the figures were much higher.

The “special charging policy” was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way, and Edgehill Road between 1997 and 2006 but not elsewhere.

The meeting finally decided that although members were agreed the overcharging was illegal from 2003, there was insufficient evidence that it had been unlawful since being implemented in 1997 – and called for more information about when and how the overcharging became an issue.

In an impassioned speech at the end of the meeting, Mr Moreton described how despite being “paid off” with £45,000 by the council to finally leave his job, this had followed him being bullied, isolated, and put under such stress he became ill and had to be hospitalised. He said: “I regret losing my job, regret that this council made me ill and the appalling stress caused to me and particularly my wife – but I would do it again to prevent such an appalling abuse of power.”

Members of the public gave him a standing ovation.

A call for an investigation by Merseyside Police had been rebuffed after the director of law said there “was no suggestion of criminal activity”.

An internal email read out by Cllr Mountney, which he said referred to the “special charging policy”, talked about their “cover being blown” and acknowledged “unfairness in the system” and then putting the issue to cabinet in “downtime” to get agreement.

The council agreed to send a letter to Mr Moreton from the chief executive to apologise for the way he had been treated. Members called for the report on the charging policy to be completed by the end of October.

.

© copyright Liverppol Daily Post . Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

The cover's blown ...

2009-09-24T00:00:00.000+01:00

Audit and Risk Managemet Committee - 23 September 2009

Members present: Councillors Leah Fraser (Cons); Simon Mountney (Cons); Jim Crabtree (Lab); John Salter (Lab); Peter Reisdorf (LibDem); and Paula Southwood (LibDem), who chaired the meeting

At the packed meeting this evening the Wirral Whistleblower identified himself as Martin Morton, former Supported Living Development Officer at the Department of Adult Social Services. Mr Morton was the officer who managed the West Wirral Supported Living services, including those in Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road.

Mr Morton acknowledged that the Internal Auditor had a difficult job in compiling the report, with so many Senior Council Officers having a hand in its production and documents turning up “out of the blue” in the last week of its preparation.

He took issue with the title of the report, as both his grievance and whistlblowing had centred, not just on "in-house" establishments, but also on private supported living accommodation, such as the one named in the Audit Commission's Follow up of PIDA Disclosure (item 38), Salisbury Independent Living.

He then set out to demonstrate that the 'special charging policy' that had been imposed on the vulnerable tenants at three properties at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road was unlawful, not only between 2003 and 2006, but from 1997.

Mr Morton told the committee that DASS were only able to "get away with it" because of the tenants' particular disabilities, and that they knew it was not a "reasonable" charge, thus rendering it "unlawful". He then quoted from an email written by DASS's Head of Finance [also identified by the Council as "Employee A"]

Councillor Mountney later read the email to the members in its entirety:

24 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

Once we go for a ‘reimbursement’ the cover’s blown. However we can’t bury our head in the sand for too much longer as the charging review group will start soon (it could be better to leave it to that group to consider?) In the meantime there is ‘unfairness’ in the system hence my advice to Xxxxx to consider the broader issues in AMT.

By the book:- there is no separate charging policy for this service, so it could be argued the domiciliary care charging policy must apply (and should have since ‘97), and that will mean a hefty reimbursement.

I would suggest we go to the Cabinet in the political down time (May-June) to get agreement for a ‘special charging policy’ for supported living as part of the budget strategy.... and that this policy maintains the status quo in financial terms but does so more fairly. I would also suggest the impact on individuals and groups in certain living situations are considered in more depth as I was left thinking the charging practice was very diverse and almost locally determined by individual staff (although I could be wrong there).

Councillor Mountney said the email was proof that Senior Officers in DASS believed the special charging policy did not have Cabinet approval, and were well aware it was "unfair" which rendered it "unreasonable" and therefore "unlawful". The Director of Law, Bill Norman, again argued the charge could not be unlawful as it was approved by members in 1997.

Councillor Southwood questioned the authenticity of the email, commenting that anyone could read something and claim it was a genuine email. The Director of Law, sitting next to her, could have confirmed its authenticity as Councillor Mountney had handed it to him at a previous meeting of the Committee, but he chose to remain silent.

Mr Morton said that this special charging policy could never be described as 'Modified CRAG' (Charging for Residential Accommodation) as the properties were Supported Living, not Residential Accommodation.

He said he was angry that the report sought to minimise the effect the overcharging had on the tenants, and described one of the cases where a man was reduced to such penury that he was forced to claim a Welfare payment to buy clothes.

Both Councillors Fraser and Mountney wanted to know how the mysterious 1997 document had come to light in DASS just one week before the publication of the report. Councillor Fraser pointed out that both DASS and Internal Audit had had a year in which to discover it, during which time the report had been due on no less than four occasions, yet had not managed to do so.

The badly-chaired, and at times angry, meeting erupted when Chris Batman of DASS offered the explanation that "it was brought to my attention" but he did not know how, where, or by who it was found. This was greeted with hoots of derision and shouts of "rubbish" and "liar" from the audience that included many people recently-retired from the Department.

When it came to the vote on reimbursement, Labour councillors appeared unsure of how they had voted, claiming they had voted for Councillor Mountney's proposal that reimbursement should be made back to 1997. In fact, they had voted only to do so if yet another enquiry by Internal Audit showed Senior Officers of DASS were, or should have been, aware that the special charging policy was unfair and/or unreasonable. It was also decided to ask Mr Morton to cooperate with Internal Audit on the inquiry.

After Councillor Southwood extended the thanks of the Committee to Mr Morton he was invited to make his closing comments, when he said that:

• he did not want to be thanked, nor did he intend to spend any more of his time helping Internal Audit 'find' what they had already been given.
• no apologies had been made either to him or to the tenants affected in the report.

• the behaviour of Senior DASS Officers towards him over the last few years had been horrendous, amounting to cruelty.

• he had spent many months shut away from the his colleagues, not allowed to attend meetings, with no work to do, and all his files confiscated.

• they had made him very ill, to the extent that he had been hospitalised.

• their treatment of him had been so appalling that he and his wife had at one time contemplated suicide.
• contrary to the impression conveyed by the report, this has not been a
series of unfortunate mistakes and time delay, but a co-ordinated, systematic cover-up of serious malpractice by the Council

• by continuing to diminish the full financial liability in respect of tenants at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, the Director and officers of DASS are bringing the Authority into disrepute

• the Council has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal the truth and thus avoid any wrong-doing by Officers being revealed

• there has been a systemic failure to protect vulnerable people from financial abuse both in-house as well as in the private sector providers such as those named by the Audit Commission.
• there has been an appalling waste of public money, which included an amount of £45,000 that he was paid by the Council to "go away and keep quiet"
(full details of total money wasted will appear in a later post)

• the direct effect of this is less money available to supply services for vulnerable people
• Wirral Council has a problem with its culture of complicity which extends right up to the Chief Executive

As he finished he received a standing ovation by the whole audience, while Council Officers and those elected Members who had continued to resist full reimbursement to the tenants concerned sat stoney-faced.

They were left in no doubt about the hostility of the audience as one young woman stormed out, loudly declared that they were "all a load of sh*te".

Will that be minuted, Mr Delap?

Councillor blasts Wirral 'Whistleblower' inquiry as a sham

2009-09-23T12:36:00.000+01:00

Wirral Globe - by Leigh Marles

The outcome of a major inquiry into the systematic overcharging of vulnerable people under the care of Wirral Council social services has been branded a “sham.”

Internal auditors carrying out a probe into a controversial “special charging policy” as it is known, made a last-minute discovery of a 12-year-old document which they said proved the policy had been officially sanctioned by a council committee in September of 1997.

They said this “changed everything.”

Even so, their long-awaited report still revealed that some clients had been overcharged by more than £100,000, and recommends the authority should now repay the cash.

The overcharging only came to light when a council “whistleblower” raised the alarm in the Wirral Globe.

But this week, Cllr Simon Mountney, who has been leading a campaign on behalf of the anonymous whistleblower, said the discovered document was “unlawful.”

Lambasting the internal audit as “just a sham” he is calling for external auditors to be brought in to launch a “full and proper” inquiry.

He said: “The discovery of that document, which nobody up until that point even realised existed, has actually changed nothing at all.

"It is an unlawful policy and just because some councillors ‘nodded it through’ 12 years ago does not mean it is valid.

“You cannot pass an unlawful minute saying it was okay for the council to take 100% of people’s income.

“We shall call for external auditors to re-examine this whole issue. What the council's internal audit uncovered was just a fraction, the tip of an awfully big iceberg.”

The audit reports says the “special charging policy” was applied at three care homes in Wirral – but nowhere else in the borough.

People were overcharged a total of £116,000, with the sums ranging from “a few hundred pounds to over £15,000”.

The report, which is to be presented to a special council scrutiny meeting on Wednesday, admits the charges to those in “supported living” accommodation were unlawful.

It says the policy was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, between 1997 and 2006.

It says: “Until April, 2003, the charges levied were, on balance, probably reasonable and lawful.

“However, between April, 2003, when fairer charging should have been brought in, and February, 2006, when fairer charging was actually introduced at ‘in-house’ supporting living units in Wirral, the charges were probably unreasonable, so far as the charges exceeded what would have been levied under fairer charging.

To that extent, the charges levied were also unlawful.”

Wirral Council’s internal audit report also acknowledges no evidence could be found that the policy had been approved by councillors until the final week of completing the document.

But the minutes from the meeting in 1997, appeared to show the necessary approval was given.

A statement from Wirral Council said: “Prior to the council’s internal audit, an investigation was conducted by the Audit Commission.

“This focused on the council’s application of the Department of Health’s Fairer Charging Policy and arrangements for the commissioning and monitoring of contracts for supported living and supported people services.

“The Audit Commission published their findings in August, 2008. The Audit and Risk Management Committee considered the conclusions and then requested an internal investigation.

“The council would like to express its appreciation to the whistleblower for raising these matters and providing evidence.”

Members were also asked to consider appropriate reimbursements if it was felt users had been overcharged.

.

© copyright Wirral Globe. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

TODAY - Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting

2009-09-23T00:01:00.000+01:00

Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall, 6pm

for directions and map CLICK HERE

Action, not lies!

2009-09-19T17:20:00.000+01:00

.
Here are two Action Plans prepared by Wirral's Department of Adult Sodial Services for meetings of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

The first will be part of the Internal Auditor's Report presented to the Committee next Wednesday, 23 September, 2009.

How many people who read the report (assuming they can untangle it) will look closely at the Action Plan? And if they do, will they notice something rather odd?

The second is the Action Plan which the Committee actually approved at the meeting of 4th November, 2008. Compare the right-hand columns in both. Spot the differece?

Give that gentleman a coconut, because he's absolutely right!

The important itens are the two at the bottom of the tables. They were the two items which raised most concern and alarm at the November meeting. They were the two items that DASS were instructed to bring forward as their original timescale was unacceptable to the Committee.

And what have they done? They've put back the completion date, and hope that nobody will notice. Bad luck, DASS, it has been noted.

.

The Internal Auditor's Report - Easy Read version

2009-09-18T08:08:00.000+01:00

In 1997 Wirral Social Services moved 16 people out of a big care home.

The people went to live in three small groups in ordinary houses in Moreton. One house was in Bermuda Road, one was in Curlew Way and the third was in Edgehill Road.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Between 1997 and 2006 the Council took too much money from the people in the three houses.

The Council called this a "Special Charging Policy".

It is "Special" because the Council decided to take money from some people, but not all people.

This meant that some people living in the houses did not have enough money to buy clothes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2000 someone who worked in Wirral Social Services told his bosses that the Council was taking too much money from the people.

The Council calls this person the Whistleblower but he has a real name too.

The Whistleblower kept trying to get the Council to stop taking too much money, but his bosses said he was wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2003 the Government said all Councils had to be more fair in what money they took from people.

This is called the Fairer Charging Policy

Wirral Council started using the Fairer Charging Policy in 2006.

When that happened people only had to pay £18 each week to the Council.

Before that they had been paying over £80 to the Council each week for the same things.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So Wirral Council kept on taking too much money from the people in the three houses for another three years.

It is wrong to take too much money from people and not give it back to them.

The law calls this "unlawful" because it is not allowed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Whistleblower still kept trying to get his bosses to take less money from the people in the three houses but they ignored him.

In 2007 the Whistleblower told The Audit Commission about the Council taking too much money from some people in Wirral.

The Audit Commission is a Government organisation that makes sure Councils do the right thing with money.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2008 the Council paid some money to the Whistleblower so he would leave the Council and not be a nuisance any more.

Although the Whistleblower did not work for the Council any more he still kept trying to get them to pay back the money they had taken from the people in the three houses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wednesday 23 September this story will be talked about at a meeting, so that Councillors can decide what to do next.

The meeting will be at 6 o'clock in the evening at Wallasey Town Hall. Anybody can go to the meeting to find out what is said.

.

Wirral Council admits "unlawful" charging policy for vulnrable people.

2009-09-17T10:15:00.002+01:00

Liverpool Daily Post - by Liam Murphy,

VULNERABLE people being cared for by a social services department were systematically overcharged to the tune of more than £100,000, a report has revealed.

The so-called “special charging policy” was applied at three locations in Wirral – but nowhere else in the borough.

Fifteen people were overcharged a total of £116,000, with the sums ranging from “a few hundred pounds to over £15,000”.

The long-awaited report, which will be presented to a special council meeting next Wednesday, admits the charges to those in “supported living” accommodation were unlawful.

It says the “special charging policy” was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, between 1997 and 2006 – but not at other establishments.

It said: “Until April, 2003, the charges levied were, on balance, probably reasonable and lawful.

“However, between April, 2003, when fairer charging should have been brought in, and February, 2006, when fairer charging was actually introduced at ‘in-house’ supporting living units in Wirral, the charges were probably unreasonable, so far as the charges exceeded what would have been levied under fairer charging.

“To that extent, the charges levied were also unlawful.”

Wirral Council’s internal audit report also acknowledges no evidence could be found that the policy had been approved by councillors until the final week of completing the document.

But minutes from a meeting in September, 1997, appeared to show the necessary approval was given.

The report said: “Wirral did not implement fairer charging for service users residing at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road until February 1, 2006.

“This delay is hard to justify in any circumstances, especially given it had a clearly adverse financial impact on vulnerable service users.”

The report also says if the charging policy was lawful up to 2003, the council lost out on income of £300,000 by not applying the charge across Wirral. It also says delays in assessing users of the service cost the council a further £156,000 between 2003 and 2006.

The case was raised by a whistleblower who has since left the authority.

A council spokesperson said: “We would like to express its appreciation to the whistleblower for raising these matters and providing evidence to the investigation.

“Since this investigation began, internal procedures for highlighting such concerns have been improved.

“Members are being asked to consider requesting the director of adult social services seeks cabinet and/or council approval to make appropriate reimbursements in cases where service users may have been overcharged.”

© copyright Wirral News. Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

2009-09-16T07:21:00.000+01:00

Wirral Council's Internal Audit Report and five appendices, which run to 74 pages online (in which the word 'Whistleblower' appears 79 times) are a tour de force of circumlocution, designed so that only the most determined reader will wade through to the end.

However just one paragraph encapsulates all that is necessary. The Wirral Whistleblower has been vindicated, as it says:

Over three years have elapsed since the Whistleblower submitted the initial formal Grievance. Only following Internal Audit’s investigation has the Council formally recognised that almost all the Whistleblower’s concerns [in relation to charging practices at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road between 1997 and 2006 and the Council’s delay in introducing Fairer Charging at all ‘in house’ Supported Living Units] were legitimate.

One question posed in the report is "Were the Whistleblower’s allegations in relation to Fairer Charging and Supported Living validated by Internal Audit’s findings?" and answers the Whistleblower's six concerns:

a) A Special Charging Policy was levied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road between 1997 and 2006.
VALIDATED

b) The Special Charging Policy was not approved by Members and was thus unlawful.
Only shown to be unfounded very recently.

c) Those charges were also excessive.
VALIDATED between 2003 and 2006

d) The Council lost large sums of money due to a failure to assess service users at other Supported Living Units across Wirral prior to 2006.
VALIDATED

e) The Council delayed unreasonably in implementing Fairer Charging for service users at Supported Living Units and this had an adverse financial consequence for the service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road.
VALIDATED

f) The Council should reimburse the service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road for monies that were ‘unlawfully levied over a prolonged period of time’.
MEMBERS SHOULD RECOMMEND IMPLIMENATION

Regarding b) above, the report says:

The only point of substance raised by the Whistleblower in relation to Fairer Charging and Supported Living and not validated by Internal Audit is the matter of Members’ approval of the principle of the ‘Special Charging Policy’ at the Social Services Committee on 3 September 1997. However, until earlier this month other current DASS officers appear to have been unaware of that decision.

And it is at this point that the report's carefully-constructed edifice suffers a catastrophic structural failure. If, as is claimed, current DASS officers were unaware of the Social Services Committee's approval of the 'Special Charging Policy' then on what authority were they making the charges?

.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

2009-09-16T07:10:00.001+01:00

7.1. Between 2003 and 2006, service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton, were subject to excessive charging totalling £116,300.

7.2. Due to the delay in undertaking financial assessments there has been a potential loss of income to the Council of £456,400 (being £300,000 prior to April 2003 and £156,400 post March 2003).

7.3. Any reimbursement of excess charge will require formal Member approval. This will require Cabinet approval and, if the funding cannot be met within existing resources, it will also require Council approval. It is recommended that any costs of reimbursement or other action are funded from the Department of Adult Social Service's Revenue Budget.

.

They will have their little jokes ...

2009-09-16T07:00:00.001+01:00

5.11.8 All officers involved in this investigation would like to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower for raising these matters and for providing evidence to the investigation. Members may wish to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower’s actions as part of their decision.

6.13 All officers involved in this investigation would like to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower for raising these matters and for providing evidence to the investigation. Members may also wish to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower’s actions as part of their decision.

The hollow laughter will surely be reverberating around Westminster House and the Town Hall this morning ...

.
.

A timeline of procrastination

2009-09-15T12:31:00.002+01:00

2000

Whistleblower first raised concerns regarding the illegal charging and financial abuse of vulnerable people

2006

Whistleblower made formal disclosures under the Public Information Disclosure Act

May 2007

Whistleblower's first grievance appeal

July 2007

Whistleblower's reconvened grievance appeal

September 2008

Audit Commission report published
Councillors were made aware of further allegations of illegal charging and financial abuse of vulnerable people
Audit and Risk Management Committee requested Internal auditors' report and investigation into why Whistleblower was forced to go to Audit Commission

November 2008

Wirral Globe revealed Whistleblower was paid £45,000 to “go away and keep quiet”.

New evidence was given to Director of Law at the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting

Two senior officers from Department of Adult Social Services were suspended on full pay pending investigation into the new evidence

An Independent Investigator appointed and started interviews

December 2008

Report due from Independent Investigator

Audit and Risk Management Committee resolved that the Director of Finance present the internal audit report in relation to the charging policy to the next meeting of the Committee.

January 2009

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

February 2009

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

March 2009

Audit Commission report found Whistleblower's allegations to be "largely justified" and a failure in the Council's own system for dealing with complaints

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

April 2009

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

May 2009

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

June 2009

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

July 2009

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee
Disciplinary hearings concerning suspended officers eventually took place
Suspended officers return to work as if nothing had happened
Wirral Council promises "a special meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee as soon as possible."
Date of 1 September set for special meeting.
No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

August 26 2009

September meeting postponed

No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

September 2009

No Internal Audit report published as promised

It's become obvious to everyone with even a passing interest in this case that Wirral Borough Council is running scared.

This situation is wholly of the Council's making but the only person who has suffered in any way is the one person who tried to do the right thing.

Except for the vulnerable people who have been financially abused, of course, but they don't count, do they?

.

.

More delays ...

2009-09-13T15:19:00.001+01:00

The following email was sent on Friday 11 September by Mark Delap, Department of Law, HR and Asset Management

TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Please note that as a result of ongoing work in relation to the internal audit PIDA report, the publication of the agenda for the Special Meeting of the Committee to be held on 23 September has been delayed. Consequently, it will not be delivered to members this evening. However, it is anticipated that the report will be cleared early next week and I will ensure that you receive immediate notification of its publication.
The agenda for the ordinary scheduled meeting has been published and is now available on the Council's intranet. You can access it by clicking here .

How many times has the report gone back to Internal Audit with the order "Must Do Better Next Time" scrawled across it in red ink?

Originally due in December 2008, then before the postponed 1 September meeting, the report was promised for two weeks ago, last week, and now this week.

The cynic would ask if Wirral's trying to hold onto it until the Libraries report comes out?

Do they think they can bury it, or hide the truths it should contain?

As our American Cousins would say "No way, Jose"!

..

The thoughts of Joe/Jo Public

2009-09-12T17:34:00.002+01:00

From Wirral Globe

MX, Wirral says... 24 Sep 09
From what I witnessed last night John Webb and Cllr.McLoughlin should do the honourable thing and resign NOW.
But they wouldn't know how to do the honourable thing would they?.
I wanted to be sick listening to what had gone on.Beyond belief.

piggymalone, wirral says... 24 Sep 09
My contacts within Social Services have told me on a number of occasions that this "rip off" of vulnerable people was widely known about by many members of the social services team but in the end only one person had the b*lls to stand up and be counted. God bless him for standing up to the bullies and crooks in the town hall and I sincerely hope that the pressure has been lifted from his shoulders

Natasha Eubank, Oxton says... 24 Sep 09
How can the Council honestly expect us to continue to maintain trust in their commitment of working for the good of Wirral Residents now?

We have already been betrayed on an unparalleled scale through the heinous SAR.

But now, now the most vulnerable amongst us have the been the victims of the most appalling breach of trust by Council Officers.

Let us be clear about what has happened here. At any one point in time over the last 10 years or so, the Council could have put this right. Individual Council Officers elected NOT to. They were aware this was, in effect, institutional financial abuse, and they chose NOT to put it right.

They discussed it in the most cynical manner in inter-departmental emails. They use expressions like 'Cover's Blown' when referring to the potential disclosure of overcharging. They chose NOT to put it right.

I believe there are other ongoing issues which demonstrate that the Council has a reluctance to rectify financial abuse in such services.

So, when along came a person who voiced his concerns, this was a massive inconvenience.

At this point, the Council could have put this right. They chose NOT to. They chose to grind one man into the ground, rather than pay back some of the most vulnerable people in this borough the money they were rightly owed.

These are the people who are supposed to be working for our good.

Two of the most senior departmental staff who were implicated are back in post, by the way, the others, and there were a few, jumped ship (or were they pushed?), before this became public.

You see, because of this, we, the residents are going to get hammered by the council again in the next few years. We are facing massive cuts in public spending. This is inevitable. The Department of Adult Social Services are so far down the financial hole, the end result of this (and it's unlikely to be a hundred-odd thousand, but considerably more) is REALLY going to hurt.

It's going to hurt US!

Ultimately, we will suffer for this. The most vulnerable people on Wirral will suffer for this. Because of the high-handed arrogance and dishonesty of council officers.

Do we really want these people working for us? Senior Officers who view Wirral as their own personal playground, where decisions that affect the quality of peoples lives can be decided in the time it takes to write an email?

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
Natasha, thank you for taking the time to write, and I can't disagree with you.

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
piggy, absolutely spot on! I too wish Martin Morton all the very best and thank him for what he was brave enough to do.

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says... 25 Sep 09
It's frankly disgraceful that this mealy-mouthed response by WBC, presumably backed by the full approval of the Director of Law, is still not telling the truth!

It reads:
"The report discussed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee focused on the issues investigated by the Audit Commission, namely the council’s application of the Department of Health’s Fairer Charging Policy and arrangements for the commissioning and monitoring of contracts for supported living and supported people services."

That is, at best misleading and at worst a downright lie.

The minutes of the Committee, dated 30 September 2008 show:
Item 20
Resolved (3) "That the officers be requested to investigate whether a charging policy had been in place dating back to 1999 and, if so, whether or not it had not been
approved by members."

At the meeting Internal Audit had to admit under close questioning that Martin Morton had given them 14 pages of documentation covering this but they had only bothered with "the bit we were looking into".

Why did they not speak up when the Committee was questioning exactly when Social Services officers realised the charges were unreasonable?

Why did they not say they already had the proof? For the same reason they told the same committee that I had not provided them with specific information - to assist with the monumental cover-up the Council's STILL trying to maintain?

It was only after my Councillor - who chairs the Committee - persisted several times on my behalf that they crawled back to admit they "had found a pencilled note of the information"

Last Wednesday, Madam Chairman was so wedded to her party's line that she protect the ruling Lab/LibDem stranglehold of the Council at all costs that she could not find even a soupcon of courage to ignore the bleatings in her ear from the Director of Law.

At a public external inquiry the right people would be asked the right questions, and more unpalatable truths would emerge.

Spiffy, Wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
Natasha - *clap* *clap* *clap* - very well said.

piggymalone, wirral says... 25 Sep 09
I assume that Martin Morton is following all the outcomes of this case and is also recovering from the mentral trauma imposed on him by our lords and masters in Wallasey Town Hall.
Well, Martin it would appear to me that, rightly, you have 100% support from the residents of Wirral and indeed, from my contacts, numerous members of the social services team. Certain Wirral Council officers and councillors are committing the criminal offence of "malfeasance in public office" not only in this case but other matters and its about time that legal action was taken against the guilty parties.

Natasha Eubank, Oxton says... 25 Sep 09
Malfeasance is EXACTLY what has happened here. The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines say that the elements of this offence are when:

A public officer acting as such;
Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder;
Without reasonable excuse or justification.

In view of this, perhaps Cllr. Southwood and Bill Norman (Director of Law) can explain why they stated a police investigation WASN'T appropriate in this instance??????

GotTheirNumber, Wirral says... 25 Sep 09
I hope the Globe goes after them...

They will, won't they?

Bill Gates, wirral says... 25 Sep 09
Councillor Mountney and Martin Morton would appear to believe that the financial abuse of disabled people in this case is the tip of the iceburgh, that is certainly the case.
I can confirm that the overcharging of disabled service users on the wirral still continues today with the full knowledge of the Wirral Social Services department and at least one of the officers that had been suspended. This abuse is present outside of the locations mentioned in the report and when exposed will form another phase of the Wirral Gate saga!

Marleys Ghost, Wirral says... 24 Sep 09
It is now clear to everyone that the charges made in the Moreton supported living establishments were unlawful and should therefore be repaid. The debate now centres on whether these charges were excessive and thus unlawful from their inception in 1997 or whether they only became unlawful following Fairer Charges for Care which should have been implemented in 2003 but, in this case, was delayed until 2006. I think that plenty of evidence has been put forward to show that, beyond any reasonable doubt, these charges were excessive from the outset. They were more than double that of the highest charging neighbouring authority, and this at a time when most authorities were providing free care. Having Wirral’s Internal Audit paw over this ground for yet another month only serves to delay and obscure things still further. The Authority should now get on with reimbursing this money to these people as quickly as possible and in a way that will not affect their benefits. However, I do agree with the Committee in saying that we still need further information. What we now need to know why was there a lengthy and expensive cover-up, who sanctioned it, and why the whistleblower, who we now know to be Martin Morton, was treated so appallingly? This is not a matter that can be left to Internal Audit as they are implicated by their own inaction in the past. The only way that these matters can be aired properly is for there to be a full independent public inquiry.

piggymalone, wirral says... 24 Sep 09
Never mind public enquiry, malfeasance in public office is a very serious criminal offence and therefore the police should be called to investigate.

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
100% agree with the former Jacob. You too have a good point piggy.

GotTheirNumber, Wirral says... Fri 25 Sep 09
Maddox and Miller - and Webb, to a certain extent - should hang their heads in shame.

As always, though, there is more to this - and I've already passed it on to the Globe.
Maddox and Miller - and Webb, to a certain extent - should hang their heads in shame. As always, though, there is more to this - and I've already passed it on to the Globe.

From Wirral Globe

GotTheirNumber, Wirral says... 23 Sep 09
Fi, fo, foe, fum, I smell the desperate measures of PR department gum.

Do they REALLY expect anyone to believe this?

A missing document found at the 11th hour?

How very bloody convenient.

Next we'll be told the 60000+ who protested against library closures were "probably mistaken".
What a bunch of (alleged) crooks.

piggymalone, wirral says... 23 Sep 09
I have it on good authority that numerous council employees were aware of this overcharging. It is now recognised that this over charging was illegal. Knowingly committing an illegal action is the very serious criminal offence of malfeasance in public office and I am at a loss as to understand why the police have not been called in to investigate.

Spiffy, Wallasey says... 24 Sep 09
Whats all this "on balance, probably reasonable and lawful" ? Overcharging vulnerable people was either reasonable or it wasnt. It was either lawful or it wasnt. So which is it ?
If just one case was unreasonable and unlawful then that one case needs looking at and those responsible held accountable.
It beats me why councils are even allowed to audit themselves.

MX, Wirral says... 24 Sep 09
Sham 2009.
I knew this case was about Council corruption but it gets worse.This is the same case where suspended officers returned to work isn't it?.
Is anyone going to take responsibility for this unholy mess or do we just accept that this is how the Council operates.
Taking money from vulnerable people because you're up the swanee.How low can you go?.
Sham 2009. I knew this case was about Council corruption but it gets worse.This is the same case where suspended officers returned to work isn't it?. Is anyone going to take responsibility for this unholy mess or do we just accept that this is how the Council operates. Taking money from vulnerable people because you're up the swanee.How low can you go?.

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
Mx, I dont think you can get any lower. Worms belly maybe?

.

© copyright individual authors . Reproduced under fair use for the purposes of comment, news reporting and their preservation
.

Stop the clock!

2009-09-11T16:48:00.002+01:00

It seems that Wirral Council can stop the clock when it comes to FOI requests! The latest exchange between Kane [sic] Corrin and J Locker is as follows:

If the Public Body seeks clarification of the FOI request, as I have done on Wirral's behalf; the Clock stops on the request until the clarification is received. I received your clarification on 10 September 2009 regarding exactly what you meant by "paid off" and your request is now being processed.
I am therefore unable to request an internal review for you in relation to your request.
Kind Regards
Kane Corrin

to which J Locker has responded:

Many thanks for you reply. My request for an internal enquiry was based on standard practice used with regard to FOIA requests and upon advice received from WDTK.com

However I am more than happy that you now seek a little more time to answer my enquiry , in full , as obviously you are now satisfied you understand what "paid off" means.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Will these difficult questions be answered after all? Has the Council run out of excuses not to answer them? Has Wirral Informaion Manager sought advice from a higher legal authority?

Stand by for the next thrilling installment of - cue drum roll - Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds, an everyday story of Council folk.

.

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LAST DAY

2009-09-10T10:24:00.000+01:00

J Locker has responded to Wirral Council's Information Manager as follows:

Many thanks for your reply. It is disappointing that after all this time my initial request is still being met with apparent prevarication and semantics. I am sure we all know exactly what I am asking and exactly what I mean by "paid off" , in fact you inferred as much in your statement....

"The terms on which an employee agrees to terminate his employment are confidential and it would be unlawful for the Council to provide details to the public of such matters."

However Let me see if I can help you by rephrasing my questions again.

In the last three years has any Wirral Council employee received any payment as part of a compromise agreement , exchange for terminating their employment with Wirral Council . [ I think we have already established that they have ]

How much were they paid and where in my copy of the the Council's audited accounts will I find the entries.

The Council has until 10 September (today) in which to respond.
.

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LATEST

2009-09-09T17:21:00.001+01:00

Wirral Council's Information Manager, Jane Corrin, has responded to J Locker as follows:

Thank you for your email below. I am unable to add anything further to my reply of 11th August, unless you can clarify for me what you mean by "paid off".

Absolutelt unbelievable!

. .

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LATEST

2009-09-03T10:11:00.000+01:00

J Locker has responded to Wirral Council as follows:

Many thanks.

Having established beyond doubt that the Council has paid off at least one Whistleblower can I refer back to my original question , which was non specific and within the guidelines of both FOIA and DPA , which was ...

"Under the terms of the FOIA could I ask for details of the number of "whistleblowers" the council has "paid off " in the last three years together with details of the amounts paid.

In addition I would request details of the source of those funds paid out [ As detailed in the Council's accounting practice] ie : From which sector of funding were the payments made ?"

I should stress that I am not asking for personal details about the Whistleblower[s] but am enquiring from a budgetary point of view….How Many , How Much , and where in the Council’s Annual accounts will I find the entries…..in fact in order to ensure that you do not contravene the Data Protection Act I will modify my request even further…

“How much has been paid ? “ and “Where in the Council’s Annual accounts will I find the entries?”

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

The council has until 10 September in which to respond

.

.

.

Council workers' £½m pay-off

2009-09-02T19:19:00.000+01:00

A link posted in a comment to the previous post leads to an article dated Thursday, July 24, 2008, on This is South Devon and Herald Express website.

The article is interesting in two respects, highlighted in the following quotes from it.

TORBAY Council's 're-shaping' is costing £500,000 in redundancy and other payments for shedding four top officers.

The total cost of the golden handshake for this round of the restructuring is £521,806.

Between them the four — environment director Mike Yeo, strategic director Paul Lucas, legal chief Bill Norman and head of children's services Margaret Dennison — have received £193,826 in redundancy payments.

Another £300,000-plus has had to be paid to their pensions provider to compensate for lost payments as they are taking their pensions early.

It continues,

The council insisted on an official Freedom of Information request from the Herald Express before it would release the latest redundancy payments.

Mrs Dennison received £59,829, Mr Lucas £53,730, Mr Norman £31,823 and Mr Yeo £48,442

And,

Mr Norman has gone to work for another council on Merseyside.

The commenter poses a very valid question, who gave the council's information officer the legal advice?

And if it is legal for Torbay council to "provide details to the public" about "the terms on which an employee agrees to terminate his employment", why is it "unlawful" in Wirral?

.

.

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LATEST

2009-09-02T11:59:00.000+01:00

Wirral Council's Information Officer, Jane Corrin, has responded to this Freedom of Information request

Good Morning,
Thank you very much for your request below. I am sorry but after taking legal advice I must advise you that, the information requested is not obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act.
This is because under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act there is an exemption from disclosure in relation to personal data where disclosure would contravene one of the data protection principles.

The first data protection principle prohibits the processing of personal data (including disclosure) if to do so would be either unlawful or unfair.

The terms on which an employee agrees to terminate his employment are confidential and it would be unlawful for the Council to provide details to the public of such matters.

I hope this has clarified matters.
.

Public Interest disclosures by Wirral Council employees

2009-09-01T17:03:00.001+01:00

A Freedom of Information request has been made to the Audit Commission

Under the terms of the FOIA could I ask how many Wirral Council employees have made disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 between January 1 2000 and today's date, broken down by department.

In addition I would like to know how many of those employees are still employed by the council as of today's date.

The Audit Commission has until 29th September 2009 to respond.

.
.

© copyright . Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

Cost of investigation and disciplinary process re senior council officers

2009-08-31T19:59:00.001+01:00

A Freedom of Information request has been made to Wirral Borough Council:

Under the terms of the FOIA could I ask for details of the total costs incurred by the council in investigating two senior officers of the Department of Adult Social Services, described as 'Employee A' and 'Employee B', which culminated in disciplinary hearings earlier this year.

I would request that specific details be given of:

1. the amount paid to the 'independent investigator' who undertook the investigation.

2. any legal fees associated with the investigation

The Council has until 29 September 2009 to respond.

.
.

.

Special Meeting - Audit and Risk Management Meeting

2009-08-27T16:37:00.001+01:00

Wirral Council

23 Sep 2009 6.00 pm
Special Meeting
Audit and Risk Management Committee

23 Sep 2009 7.30 pm - Audit and Risk Management Committee

It seems one and a half hours have been allocated for the Special Meeting, presumably replacing the meeting postponed from 1st September.

One and a half hours. Such optimism.
.
.
.

© copyright . Reproduced under fair use for the dual purposes of comment and news reporting
.

POSTPONED!

2009-08-26T21:16:00.000+01:00

Wirral Borough Council

The Audit & Risk Management Committee meeting scheduled for 1st September has been postponed.

Why?

There is one topic on the Agenda: Adult Social Services - Charging Policy

What is going on here?
..

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds

2009-08-12T21:12:00.001+01:00

J Locker has responded to Wirral Council's reply

My original question did not mention "illegal behaviour" which makes your response a little confusing.

However can I refer you to the
minutes of the Audit and Risk Management Committee

5.3.3.
What is beyond dispute is that the individual responsible for the actual ‘Whistleblowing’ is a former employee of the AdultSocial Services Department who had been actively involved with the case in question. This individual had expressed concerns to management on a number of occasions regarding systems in operation within the Department and the handling of this case.

5.3.4. A compromise agreement that included a confidentiality clause was prepared and agreed by the Individual, the Adult SocialServices Department, Legal & Member Services and Human Resources. TheHead of Human Resources stated that this type of agreement, whilstnot being commonplace, has been utilised by the Council on a numberof occassions [sic] in certain circumstances where irrecoverable differences are in evidence

Could you also confirm that the "Whistleblower" was paid the £45K quoted in the Press. It is that sum, before or after tax deductions, which I referred to when I asked from which sector offunding the payments were made....ie where in my copy of theCouncil's Audited Accounts will I find the entry ?
Many thanks
Yours sincerely,
J Locker

.

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds

2009-08-11T21:08:00.001+01:00

Wirral Council has responded to the Freedom of Information request below

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your request for information below.

Wirral Council is not aware that they have ever made a payment to an employee, in return for that employee promising not to report to the appropriate authorities any concerns he/she might have, as to alleged illegal behaviour either by the Council or by anyone connected with theCouncil.

If you could clarify for me what you mean by "paid off" please, if the response above has not answered your question.

Kind Regards
Jane Corrin
Information Manager
Wirral Council

.

.

Staff suspensions

2009-08-05T20:59:00.000+01:00

Freedom of Information Request:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Last year MBC announced 2 senior members of staff had
been suspended from work pending internal investigations over the
retention of supported living funds of people with learning
difficulties. Could you please tell me the outcome of the
investigation and what action, if any, was taken againt the
suspended staff

Yours
faithfully,

Dave Rimmer

The response by Wirral Metropolitcan Borough Council:

Good Morning,
The acting head of legal services at Wirral has reviewed the
response you were given to this enquiry in full and is satisfied that the answer is factually correct and appropriate.
The Council believes, because of the very small numbers of staff
involved, it is difficult, if not impossible to detail the actions taken
to date and not identify the post holder/s and therefore the
individual/s concerned. I am sorry on this occasion I am unable to
supply the information to you.
Kind Regards

.

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds

2009-07-31T20:53:00.000+01:00

A Freedom of Information request has been made from Wirral Borough Council:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Good morning.

Under the terms of the FOIA could I ask for details of the number of "whistleblowers" the council has "paid off " in the last three years together with details of the amounts paid.

In addition I would request details of the source of those funds paid out [ As detailed in the Council's accounting practice] ie : From which sector of funding were the payments made ?

Many thanks

Status: Currently waiting for a response from Wirral Borough Council, they must respond promptly but no later than 1 September 2009.
.

.