Wirral Council overcharged vulnerable adults in care

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

Cost of investigation and disciplinary process re senior council officers

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

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

Email from Natasha Eubank to Cllr Paula Southwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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 ...

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

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

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

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
.