Officers suspended over financial abuse claims

Wirral Globe - by Justin Dunn »

TWO senior officers from Wirral Council have been suspended following claims of financial abuse.
The Globe exclusively revealed on Wednesday that a “whistleblower” had tried to alert the council to the claims – but had allegedly been given a £45,000 pay off to leave his job and “keep quiet”.

Last night, a hastily-called meeting of senior executives and group leaders agreed to suspend the pair pending further inquiries.

A report by the Audit Commission addresses the whistleblower’s concerns that there was a “special charging policy” which cost vulnerable people extra money dating back as far as 1999 that had not been approved by the council and was “excessive and unlawful”.

Conservative councillor Simon Mountney had told the Globe he believes there has been “institutional financial abuse” that the Audit Commission report indicated had been “covered up”.


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

COVER UP CLAIM

Wirral Globe – By Justin Dunn

A COUNCIL whistleblower who raised serious concerns over alleged financial abuse within Wirral’s adult social services claims he was paid £45,000 to “go away and keep quiet”.

The whistleblower claims hundreds of thousands of pounds “at least” are owed to some of the council’s “service users” – vulnerable adults in contracted-out supported living accomodation.
An Audit Commission report into his allegations was being discussed at a meeting of the council’s audit and risk management committee as the Globe went to press on Tuesday evening.

The commission’s report addresses the whistleblower’s concerns that there was a “special charging policy” which cost vulnerable people extra money dating back as far as 1999 that had not been approved by the council and was “excessive and unlawful”.

In its findings, the commission report says it had “confirmed that a charging policy was applied at some supported living establishments” and that “it is not clear from discussions with [council] officers the extent to which the charging policy was in place or whether it was approved by members [of the council]”.

On the issue of whether vulnerable people are still paying more than they should several years after a new policy was implemented, the commission notes: “There remains a substantial risk that users receiving services from one of the council’s service providers are being charged unfairly.”

It says that despite a request from the council, one contractor had still “not arranged for the completion of financial assessment forms for service users”.

The report also states: “The council does not always know the actual contributions that the provider requires service users to contribute… 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” on fairer charging.

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

Conservative councillor Simon Mountney, whose call for a debate on the report has been deferred until December, said he believed the report amounted to the exposure of a “cover up”.

He told the Globe: “This is a damning report into the way in which vulnerable people in our council care have been open to abuse of their finances and how that was covered up.
“I also want to know why the person who raised the concerns was paid off with £45,000 and told to go away and keep quiet.”

A Wirral Council spokesman said it took the findings “very seriously” and was “committed to implementing with immediate effect all the recommend-ations identified”, adding: “The council debate was deferred to ensure considerations by Audit Committee, that will examine the findings of an Internal Audit investigation, and to ensure further consideration by Cabinet are not prejudiced.”
.

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

Wirral people are at risk of ‘rip-off’ fees

Liverpool Daily Post - by Laura Sharpe

VULNERABLE Wirral residents who receive social services in their own homes may be at substantial risk of being ripped off, according to a report by the Audit Commission.

The commission launched an investigation into value for money within Adult Social Services follow-ing “whistleblowing” complaints.

Completed between January and March of this year, the Commission found “there remains a substantial risk that users receiving services from one of the council’s Supported Living providers are being charged unfairly.”

The report added: “It is not clear who is currently ensuring that these service users are receiving adequate protection from the risk of financial abuse. This situation has existed for several years.”

Last night, Wirral Council said it had investigated the service where users were at risk of being unfairly charged, and said the majority were not.

It insisted that safeguards were now in place to ensure the financial protection of vulnerable residents.

One of the allegations raised under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, was that a “special charging policy” was applied by social services in respect of supported living users with learning disabilities.

The allegation made was the policy had not been approved by the council and was “excessive and unlawful”.

The review found a charging policy was applied at some Supported Living establishments, though it was unclear to what extent it was used or whether it had been approved by members.

The report also criticises the slow adoption of the Fairer Charging Guidance issued by the Department of Health in 1997, which was not adapted in full until 2007.

During the review, the Commission found service users had been told charges under Fairer Charging would be lower than they had originally paid. Compensation was promised from April, 2003, although no compensation has yet been given.

The report also concludes that in order for the council to provide ongoing value for money, it must put a termination date on current open-ended contracts with service users.

An end date would allow the service to be re-advertised, allowing new providers to bid to take over the service at lower cost. The report also highlights good practice in many areas including procedures put in place by the council to reduce the risk of potential financial abuse.

Value for money reviews have now been put in place and the council has agreed to review charging annually.

A meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee will discuss the report at a meeting next Tuesday.

A spokesperson for Wirral’s Adult Social Services department, said: “The report identifies a number of areas of good practice and, where there were concerns, these are being addressed through an action plan agreed with the Audit Commission.

“We have thoroughly investigated the point that service users were at risk of being unfairly charged through one service provider and found that, in the vast majority of cases, they were not.

“However, appropriate safeguards are now in place to ensure the financial protection of all our residents living in vulnerable situations in future.”

.

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

Comments from A Really Rotten Borough

Comments posted on A Really Rotten Borough prior to 3 October 2009 were not attached when their posts were moved to Blowing the whistle. They can be found here, complete with links to the original post.


...............................

Anonymous said...
It's gonna be interesting to see them get out of this one. What's the betting it ends up as another internal review?
03 October 2009 06:41
Commissioining of independent investigation

Anonymous said...
They're gonna need a big dock for this case when it hits the courts. i can just seem them all blaming each other. What a bunch of crooks.
03 October 2009 06:44
Misconduct in public office

Corrupt Camden Council said...
You take your life in your own hands if you have standards and your conscience compels you to speak out against the corrupt and harmful practices by local councils and 'blow the whistle' on them. I know this from experience.

Certain people in my local council are involved in a vendetta against me and another resident simply because we 'dare to' challenge their mis-conduct.
28 September 2009 02:17
Wirral's Champion

Anonymous said...
I posted this comment on the Daily Post page so I hope it's OK to also post it here.

I'm so pleased to hear this investigation is to take place.

However, had Councillor Simon Holbrook acted on the information contained in the pack of documents which I handed to him on Sunday 5 October 2008, the last 11 months would have been different.

Had Councillor Pat Williams acted on the information I gave her in January 2008, when I appealed to her for help, the last 20 months would have been very different.

I understand that at the Disciplinry Hearings last July Councillor Simon Mountney was asked why I chose to go to him.

The answer is obvious. He listened, said "that's terrible", and acted. They listened, said "that's terrible", then went away to see how they could bury it.
The Loose Cannon
25 September 2009 14:52
Wirral Council launches investigation into allegation of bullying

Anonymous said...
How remarkable that the Director of DASS has suddenly decided to go on holiday immediately the Director of Law is ordered to investigate the bullying in his department.

Or is he under orders from Maddox?

With him out of the road perhaps people will gather the courage to speak out, and not before time.
29 September 2009 14:01
Wirral Council launches investigation into allegation of bullying

Anonymous said...
Well if either of them think that will save their skins they're wrong. Maddox may well want Webb out of the way during the investigation but they're both up to their ears in the sh*t.
29 September 2009 16:20
Wirral Council launches investigation into allegation of bullying

Anonymous said...
"There are no separate itemised details ... of Employees salaries or payments"??

What a load of cobblers. These are the people that are dealing with our money and they don't keep "separate itemised details" of what they're doing with it?

Fred Karno's Circus was more organised than this shower. The sooner real auditors get in there and find out what's going on the better for us poor council tax payers and service users.
24 September 2009 22:54
Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-THE SAGA CONTINUES

Anonymous said...
If that's the email that got "Employee A" suspended, then how in God's name has he got away with it? He clearly states the charges were "unfair" and "unfair" = "unreasonable" = "unlawful" and how underhand to want to take it to cabinet in down time to push it through on the QT.

I've had it on good authority that the ruling parties councillors did not equit themselves well and the chairwoman was very biassed and following the party line.
24 September 2009 18:58
The cover's blown ...

Anonymous said...
Ever since I was able to I have voted Liberal and then Lib Dem but after seeing what's laughingly called democracy in action I know one thing for certain. One of them involved in last night's meeting will not be getting my vote or any other member of my families when they come up for re-election and we'll make damned sure everyone knows they don't give a toss for the people they represent. It was obvious only two people round that table wanted to find the truth. It's a pity I can't vote for either of them come May
24 September 2009 23:21
The cover's blown ...

Anonymous said...
Cllr Holbrook could hardly conceal his contempt when he described how DASS had dismissed Mr Morton as a "weak witness". The Director should pay more heed to Sir Walter Scott's famous quote, "What a tangled webb we weave when first we practise to deceive".
25 September 2009 00:33
The cover's blown ...

Anonymous said...
I thought Cllr.Holbrook said DASS thought Mr.Morton was "not a good witness".Well I didn't see him surrounded by a bunch of acolytes and advisors,what's more if that was the case why did Internal Audit go to him for information that DASS were unable/unwilling to provide?.
Sounds like a deliberate and erroneous smear to me.
25 September 2009 23:24
The cover's blown ...

Anonymous said...
If these vulnerable people continued to pay £80 opposed to £18 how has this extra money been spent.
19 September 2009 20:46
Easy Read

Anonymous said...
What a good question. Does it show up in the accounts and if not where is it?
20 September 2009 13:37
Easy Read

Anonymous said...
AS DASS had no knowledge the charges had been approved by Members why did they not investigate when the Whistleblower raised the question nine years ago? If the documentation exists today it existed then.

Why did they expend so much time and effort in trying to prove the Whistleblower wrong instead of doing the jobs there paid to do?
16 September 2009 09:21
Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Anonymous said...
Why did they force him out of the job he was good at? Seemingly he was the only honest and honourable person in DASS and they tried to destroy him. Thank God they didn't succeed.
16 September 2009 10:05
Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Anonymous said...
Hang about, the report says theres no problem at Balls road because the whistleblower didn't mention it, that doesn;t mean theres no problem, THERE IS and ppl there need to get money back to.
16 September 2009 16:21
Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Anonymous said...
What a palava, DASS have obviously lost an excellent officer and thank god he did blow the whistle as it would still be carrying on now. DASS hierarchy should all be dismissed, never mind suspended and brought back! The whistle blower has already moved on and secured an excellent position in the housing support field; who needs DASS when they act like this; its disgraceful and they should make an example of them!!
16 September 2009 19:20
Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Anonymous said...
Contrary to anonymous 2's viewpoint, whistleblower is not the only honest or honourable person in DASS. I know many hard-working, dedicated, honourable people in DASS who are completely browbeaten by the current director and other senior managers who do his bidding without question. They are nothing but a bunch of bullies and anything but honest and honourable.
19 September 2009 21:42
Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Anonymous said...
I am very gratefull to the whistleblower for all he has done he needs a medal. He was and is the only honest person in this corrupt system He should never have lost his job
21 September 2009 21:43
Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Anonymous said...
In response to Anonymous 5, I would agree that the whistleblower is not the only honourable, hardworking and dedicated person ever to work for DASS. But how many have had the courage to make a stand for their principles and the protection of vulnerable people. I can only think of one person. The Wistleblower comes to mind!!
27 September 2009 16:18
Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Anonymous said...
And so DASS's Revenue Budget is to be stretched even further thanks to its officers inefficiencies and errors? What penalties will be imposed on them?

Who are the losers? As always, the council tax payers and the vulnerable people of Wirral who aren't able to get services because DASS cocked up.
16 September 2009 09:32
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Anonymous said...
How can you charge some people right up to the hilt and not charge others anything? Surely that can't be legal.
16 September 2009 12:34
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Anonymous said...
How will members express their appreciation? Three rousing chears for the Whistleblower? I think not. It would stick in their throats.

How about giving him his job back and sacking the ones who covered this up for so long?

Or maybe a big fat cheque from the pocket of senior officers to compensate him for his appalling treatment at their hands?

A sterile note in the minutes will not do.
16 September 2009
They will have their little jokes ...

Anonymous said...
Yeah right enough, this whole thing stinks like a kipper factory.
16 September 2009 11:45
They will have their little jokes ...

Anonymous said...
Pass the sick bucket round
21 September 2009 07:10
They will have their little jokes ...

Anonymous said...
Kane Corrin??? Is this a sex-change, or personation? The whole thing smacks of panic on the part of WBC. Looks as if they just realised how stupid they made themselves look.
11 September 2009 19:09
Stop the clock!

Anonymous said...
It's somewhat embarrassing to see the Council twisting and turning, trying to get away from the uncomfortable facts.
10 September 2009 13:00
Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LAST DAY

Anonymous said...
"Mr Norman has gone to work for another council on Merseyside."

This is Mr Bill Norman, as in Director of Law for Wirral, is it? The one that advises the Information Manager to avoid answer the vexed question about the whistleblower's pay-off? Curiouser and curiouser
21 September 2009 08:50
Council workers' £½m pay-off

Anonymous said...
I wonder where they got their legal advice because it doesn't make sense if you check this out
http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Council-workers-m-pay/article-234980-detail/article.html
02 September 2009 18:0
Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LATEST

Anonymous said...
Well that makes it pretty clear that there was something very badly wrong in the department for the whistleblower to be paid to keep schtum. Will they come clean about how many whistleblowers have been paid to keep quiet?

FFS this is our money there paying to cover things up. There better be some good answers at the meeting in September.
12 August 2009 16:52
Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds

Anonymous said...
"We are also committed to ensuring the issues raised are examined by Councillors in an open and transparent way."

Yeah, right. Was that a squadron of pigs just flew over?
01 August 2009 12:50
Audit and Risk Management Committee

Anonymous said...
We can only hope all the truth comes out at this meeting and we implore everyone who has taken an interest in this case to attend........
11 August 2009 21:05
Audit and Risk Management Committee

Anonymous said...
Is it not interesting that a criminal case is being heard, by councillors, in a committee room and not in the High Court? The High Court is usualy where cases of theft, fraud, false accounting,intimidation and blackmail are heard. Am I missing something hear?.....Oh! sorry, I forgot, powerless vulnerable people don't matter........silly me. GOODM
16 August 2009 10:14
Audit and Risk Management Committee

Anonymous said...
If these vulnerable people continued to pay £80 opposed to £18 how has this extra money been spent.
19 September 2009 20:24
Audit and Risk Management Committee

Anonymous said...
ALL I CAN SAY IS, WATCH WHATS NEXT.THIS SOCIAL CASE IS VERY BAD, BUT WATCH WHAT THE NEXT ONE IS!
26 September 2009 15:57
Audit and Risk Management Committee

Anonymous said...
Molto mysterioso!.We don't know why Employee A & Employee B were suspended,we don't know what decisions was reached and we don't know what instructions were given by the Appeals Committee other than Employee B appears to be completely innocent of what exactly? ( and did it really take 9 months to establish the "fact"?).
I know it's something to do with money,which one of the "Employees" said there was "no financial liability" to the Council?.I've seen all kinds of figures mentioned.Is any money owed or what?.I'm confused......
05 August 2009 22:03
Appeals Sub-Committee

Anonymous said...
"Following the first day's hearing of the grievance and, without any conclusion being reached, the appellant decided that he would withdraw his appeal."

Is that the truth? The whole truth? Nothing but the truth?

So help you, God.
06 August 2009 12:10
Appeals Sub-Committee

Anonymous said...
Nothing like the truth as respective Councillors know......however if you tells the truth one is sure sooner or later to be found out!.
09 August 2009 17:21
Appeals Sub-Committee

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