"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
.

Wirral Council responds to claims of cover-up and malpractice

4:34 pm Thursday 24th September 2009

Wirral Globe - by Craig Manning

FOLLOWING last night's meeting of Wirral's Audit and Risk Management committee, the council has issued the following response.

"The council recognises that the issues raised by the whistleblower in his initial grievance should have been dealt with more appropriately and sincerely apologises for the stress that it has caused.

"We continue to express our appreciation to him for raising these matters and providing evidence to the investigation.

"Since this investigation began, we have significantly improved internal procedures.

"This includes publicising the grievance and whistleblowing policies so that staff understand their rights to highlight concerns and managers are fully aware of their responsibilities in dealing with such issues.

"The report discussed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee focused on the issues investigated by the Audit Commission, namely the council’s application of the Department of Health’s Fairer Charging Policy and arrangements for the commissioning and monitoring of contracts for supported living and supported people services.

"The committee agreed that the director of Adult Social Services should seek cabinet and or council approval to make appropriate reimbursements dating back to 2003 in cases where service users may have been overcharged.

"In addition to this, further investigation was requested to establish when the council first suspected that service-users were being overcharged. The outcome of this investigation will be considered by members in November."
.

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

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-THE SAGA CONTINUES

'Kane' Corrin, Wirral's Information Manager has responded to J.Locker's request as follows:

Good Afternoon,
I have copied the reduced scope of your request below and have provided Council's response which is:-

There has only been one instance of an employee who has made a whistle blowing complaint subsequently agreeing to terminate his employment. As already explained to you in previous correspondence, the Council cannot disclose the terms on which any employee agrees to terminate his or her employment, this includes any amount of money received by the employee.

There are no separate itemised details, within the Council's Annual accounts that give details of Employees salaries or payments in relation to termination of employment.

The amount of money paid would form part of the Service expenditure heading, for the Department in question, in the Annual Accounts.

.

Call for a police inquiry rejected as Wirral Council is accused of a major cover-up

Wirral Globe - by Craig Manning

A call for a police investigation into allegations of a cover-up and serious malpractice following an inquiry into systematic overcharging of people in Wirral Council care was rejected last night.

Feelings ran high as a previously anonymous "whistleblower" broke cover to tell councillors on the scrutiny committee that the authority had all-but ruined his life.

A special meeting of the committee had been called to study an internal audit report on a so-called "special charging policy."

The audit ruled people in “supported living” accommodation from 2003 were overcharged and the policy unlawful.

The overcharging only came to light when former employee Martin Morton blew the whistle and raised the alarm in the Wirral Globe.

Mr Morton addressed the committee and said that he had been bullied out of his job after voicing his concerns.

He said: "It was a systemic failure of vulnerable people and nearly did for me. It was completely unacceptable.

"I regret losing my job, regret that this council made me ill through the appalling stress to me and particularly my wife.

"But I would do it again. I don't want to go to an early grave knowing that the council got away with an appalling abuse of power."

Mr Morton said he was paid £45,000 by the council to "go away and keep quiet."

The stress placed upon him had been so great he had to be hospitalised.

At the end of the two-and-a-half-hour meeting at Wallasey Town Hall, committee members agreed that although overcharging was illegal from 2003, there was insufficient evidence to suggest it was unlawful since its first implementation in 1997.

The committee has called for a further investigation about when overcharging became an issue, and will meet to consider this at the end of the year.

Conservatives pressed for a police inquiry but this was rejected by the Director of Law as there was no evidence to suggest criminal activity.

Cllr Leah Fraser, who called for police to become involved, told the committee: “If the charging was unfair, it’s then unlawful.

"And if it’s unlawful it follows then that it’s illegal. You’ve wrongly taken money from people. I believe there is a matter for the police here.”

The audit report said the “special charging policy” was applied at three care homes in Wirral – but nowhere else in the borough. The policy was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, between 1997 and 2006.

Until April, 2003, the report said, the charges levied were, "on balance," probably reasonable and lawful.

It stated people were overcharged a total of £116,000, with sums ranging from a few hundred pounds to more than £15,000.

A committee minute which had been made in September of 1997 turned up in the last fortnight of the auditors' review and, they wrote, "changed everything" as it proved the charging policy had been officially sanctioned by elected members of the council.

This ruling has been disputed by the Conservative group who claim the minute only sanctioned what was still "unlawful" policy.

The council has agreed to send a letter of apology to Mr Morton for the way he had been treated.

.

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

Wirral Council accused of major cover-up

Liverpool Daily Post - by Liam Murphy

WIRRAL Council allowed a “co-ordinated cover-up and serious malpractice” over a special charging policy for vulnerable people, a committee meeting heard last night.

A special meeting of the authority’s audit committee was held to receive a report into allegations by whistleblower Martin Moreton.

A former employee of adult social services, Mr Moreton told the committee he had been bullied out of his job after raising concerns about the so-called Special Charging Policy, which was applied at council-run establishments for vulnerable people.

After praising Mr Moreton for his honesty and integrity, Cllr Simon Mountney demanded an external investigation and said some residents had been left in such penury by the over-charging that they were forced to get their clothes from charity shops – because their benefits had been largely stripped from them. The long-awaited report to the committee admitted the charges were unlawful. The report said 15 vulnerable people were overcharged a total of £116,000 – with the sums ranging from “a few hundred pounds to over £15,000” – although Mr Moreton insisted the figures were much higher.

The “special charging policy” was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way, and Edgehill Road between 1997 and 2006 but not elsewhere.

The meeting finally decided that although members were agreed the overcharging was illegal from 2003, there was insufficient evidence that it had been unlawful since being implemented in 1997 – and called for more information about when and how the overcharging became an issue.

In an impassioned speech at the end of the meeting, Mr Moreton described how despite being “paid off” with £45,000 by the council to finally leave his job, this had followed him being bullied, isolated, and put under such stress he became ill and had to be hospitalised. He said: “I regret losing my job, regret that this council made me ill and the appalling stress caused to me and particularly my wife – but I would do it again to prevent such an appalling abuse of power.”

Members of the public gave him a standing ovation.

A call for an investigation by Merseyside Police had been rebuffed after the director of law said there “was no suggestion of criminal activity”.

An internal email read out by Cllr Mountney, which he said referred to the “special charging policy”, talked about their “cover being blown” and acknowledged “unfairness in the system” and then putting the issue to cabinet in “downtime” to get agreement.

The council agreed to send a letter to Mr Moreton from the chief executive to apologise for the way he had been treated. Members called for the report on the charging policy to be completed by the end of October.

.

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

The cover's blown ...

Audit and Risk Managemet Committee - 23 September 2009

Members present: Councillors Leah Fraser (Cons); Simon Mountney (Cons); Jim Crabtree (Lab); John Salter (Lab); Peter Reisdorf (LibDem); and Paula Southwood (LibDem), who chaired the meeting

At the packed meeting this evening the Wirral Whistleblower identified himself as Martin Morton, former Supported Living Development Officer at the Department of Adult Social Services. Mr Morton was the officer who managed the West Wirral Supported Living services, including those in Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road.

Mr Morton acknowledged that the Internal Auditor had a difficult job in compiling the report, with so many Senior Council Officers having a hand in its production and documents turning up “out of the blue” in the last week of its preparation.

He took issue with the title of the report, as both his grievance and whistlblowing had centred, not just on "in-house" establishments, but also on private supported living accommodation, such as the one named in the Audit Commission's Follow up of PIDA Disclosure (item 38), Salisbury Independent Living.

He then set out to demonstrate that the 'special charging policy' that had been imposed on the vulnerable tenants at three properties at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road was unlawful, not only between 2003 and 2006, but from 1997.

Mr Morton told the committee that DASS were only able to "get away with it" because of the tenants' particular disabilities, and that they knew it was not a "reasonable" charge, thus rendering it "unlawful". He then quoted from an email written by DASS's Head of Finance [also identified by the Council as "Employee A"]

Councillor Mountney later read the email to the members in its entirety:

24 February 2004
Subject: RE: Supported Accommodation – Charging Policy

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

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

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

Councillor Mountney said the email was proof that Senior Officers in DASS believed the special charging policy did not have Cabinet approval, and were well aware it was "unfair" which rendered it "unreasonable" and therefore "unlawful". The Director of Law, Bill Norman, again argued the charge could not be unlawful as it was approved by members in 1997.

Councillor Southwood questioned the authenticity of the email, commenting that anyone could read something and claim it was a genuine email. The Director of Law, sitting next to her, could have confirmed its authenticity as Councillor Mountney had handed it to him at a previous meeting of the Committee, but he chose to remain silent.

Mr Morton said that this special charging policy could never be described as 'Modified CRAG' (Charging for Residential Accommodation) as the properties were Supported Living, not Residential Accommodation.

He said he was angry that the report sought to minimise the effect the overcharging had on the tenants, and described one of the cases where a man was reduced to such penury that he was forced to claim a Welfare payment to buy clothes.

Both Councillors Fraser and Mountney wanted to know how the mysterious 1997 document had come to light in DASS just one week before the publication of the report. Councillor Fraser pointed out that both DASS and Internal Audit had had a year in which to discover it, during which time the report had been due on no less than four occasions, yet had not managed to do so.

The badly-chaired, and at times angry, meeting erupted when Chris Batman of DASS offered the explanation that "it was brought to my attention" but he did not know how, where, or by who it was found. This was greeted with hoots of derision and shouts of "rubbish" and "liar" from the audience that included many people recently-retired from the Department.

When it came to the vote on reimbursement, Labour councillors appeared unsure of how they had voted, claiming they had voted for Councillor Mountney's proposal that reimbursement should be made back to 1997. In fact, they had voted only to do so if yet another enquiry by Internal Audit showed Senior Officers of DASS were, or should have been, aware that the special charging policy was unfair and/or unreasonable. It was also decided to ask Mr Morton to cooperate with Internal Audit on the inquiry.

After Councillor Southwood extended the thanks of the Committee to Mr Morton he was invited to make his closing comments, when he said that:

• he did not want to be thanked, nor did he intend to spend any more of his time helping Internal Audit 'find' what they had already been given.

• no apologies had been made either to him or to the tenants affected in the report.

• the behaviour of Senior DASS Officers towards him over the last few years had been horrendous, amounting to cruelty.

• he had spent many months shut away from the his colleagues, not allowed to attend meetings, with no work to do, and all his files confiscated.

• they had made him very ill, to the extent that he had been hospitalised.

• their treatment of him had been so appalling that he and his wife had at one time contemplated suicide.

• contrary to the impression conveyed by the report, this has not been a
series of unfortunate mistakes and time delay, but a co-ordinated, systematic cover-up of serious malpractice by the Council

• by continuing to diminish the full financial liability in respect of tenants at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, the Director and officers of DASS are bringing the Authority into disrepute

• the Council has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal the truth and thus avoid any wrong-doing by Officers being revealed

• there has been a systemic failure to protect vulnerable people from financial abuse both in-house as well as in the private sector providers such as those named by the Audit Commission.

• there has been an appalling waste of public money, which included an amount of £45,000 that he was paid by the Council to "go away and keep quiet"
(full details of total money wasted will appear in a later post)

• the direct effect of this is less money available to supply services for vulnerable people

• Wirral Council has a problem with its culture of complicity which extends right up to the Chief Executive

As he finished he received a standing ovation by the whole audience, while Council Officers and those elected Members who had continued to resist full reimbursement to the tenants concerned sat stoney-faced.

They were left in no doubt about the hostility of the audience as one young woman stormed out, loudly declared that they were "all a load of sh*te".

Will that be minuted, Mr Delap?

.

Councillor blasts Wirral 'Whistleblower' inquiry as a sham

Wirral Globe - by Leigh Marles

The outcome of a major inquiry into the systematic overcharging of vulnerable people under the care of Wirral Council social services has been branded a “sham.”

Internal auditors carrying out a probe into a controversial “special charging policy” as it is known, made a last-minute discovery of a 12-year-old document which they said proved the policy had been officially sanctioned by a council committee in September of 1997.

They said this “changed everything.”

Even so, their long-awaited report still revealed that some clients had been overcharged by more than £100,000, and recommends the authority should now repay the cash.

The overcharging only came to light when a council “whistleblower” raised the alarm in the Wirral Globe.

But this week, Cllr Simon Mountney, who has been leading a campaign on behalf of the anonymous whistleblower, said the discovered document was “unlawful.”

Lambasting the internal audit as “just a sham” he is calling for external auditors to be brought in to launch a “full and proper” inquiry.

He said: “The discovery of that document, which nobody up until that point even realised existed, has actually changed nothing at all.

"It is an unlawful policy and just because some councillors ‘nodded it through’ 12 years ago does not mean it is valid.

“You cannot pass an unlawful minute saying it was okay for the council to take 100% of people’s income.

“We shall call for external auditors to re-examine this whole issue. What the council's internal audit uncovered was just a fraction, the tip of an awfully big iceberg.”

The audit reports says the “special charging policy” was applied at three care homes in Wirral – but nowhere else in the borough.

People were overcharged a total of £116,000, with the sums ranging from “a few hundred pounds to over £15,000”.

The report, which is to be presented to a special council scrutiny meeting on Wednesday, admits the charges to those in “supported living” accommodation were unlawful.

It says the policy was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, between 1997 and 2006.

It says: “Until April, 2003, the charges levied were, on balance, probably reasonable and lawful.

“However, between April, 2003, when fairer charging should have been brought in, and February, 2006, when fairer charging was actually introduced at ‘in-house’ supporting living units in Wirral, the charges were probably unreasonable, so far as the charges exceeded what would have been levied under fairer charging.

To that extent, the charges levied were also unlawful.”

Wirral Council’s internal audit report also acknowledges no evidence could be found that the policy had been approved by councillors until the final week of completing the document.

But the minutes from the meeting in 1997, appeared to show the necessary approval was given.

A statement from Wirral Council said: “Prior to the council’s internal audit, an investigation was conducted by the Audit Commission.

“This focused on the council’s application of the Department of Health’s Fairer Charging Policy and arrangements for the commissioning and monitoring of contracts for supported living and supported people services.

“The Audit Commission published their findings in August, 2008. The Audit and Risk Management Committee considered the conclusions and then requested an internal investigation.

“The council would like to express its appreciation to the whistleblower for raising these matters and providing evidence.”

Members were also asked to consider appropriate reimbursements if it was felt users had been overcharged.


.

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

TODAY - Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting

Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall, 6pm

for directions and map CLICK HERE

Action, not lies!

.
Here are two Action Plans prepared by Wirral's Department of Adult Sodial Services for meetings of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

The first will be part of the Internal Auditor's Report presented to the Committee next Wednesday, 23 September, 2009.

How many people who read the report (assuming they can untangle it) will look closely at the Action Plan? And if they do, will they notice something rather odd?


The second is the Action Plan which the Committee actually approved at the meeting of 4th November, 2008. Compare the right-hand columns in both. Spot the differece?

Give that gentleman a coconut, because he's absolutely right!

The important itens are the two at the bottom of the tables. They were the two items which raised most concern and alarm at the November meeting. They were the two items that DASS were instructed to bring forward as their original timescale was unacceptable to the Committee.

And what have they done? They've put back the completion date, and hope that nobody will notice. Bad luck, DASS, it has been noted.

.

The Internal Auditor's Report - Easy Read version

In 1997 Wirral Social Services moved 16 people out of a big care home.

The people went to live in three small groups in ordinary houses in Moreton. One house was in Bermuda Road, one was in Curlew Way and the third was in Edgehill Road.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Between 1997 and 2006 the Council took too much money from the people in the three houses.

The Council called this a "Special Charging Policy".

It is "Special" because the Council decided to take money from some people, but not all people.

This meant that some people living in the houses did not have enough money to buy clothes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2000 someone who worked in Wirral Social Services told his bosses that the Council was taking too much money from the people.

The Council calls this person the Whistleblower but he has a real name too.

The Whistleblower kept trying to get the Council to stop taking too much money, but his bosses said he was wrong.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2003 the Government said all Councils had to be more fair in what money they took from people.

This is called the Fairer Charging Policy

Wirral Council started using the Fairer Charging Policy in 2006.

When that happened people only had to pay £18 each week to the Council.

Before that they had been paying over £80 to the Council each week for the same things.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So Wirral Council kept on taking too much money from the people in the three houses for another three years.

It is wrong to take too much money from people and not give it back to them.

The law calls this "unlawful" because it is not allowed.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Whistleblower still kept trying to get his bosses to take less money from the people in the three houses but they ignored him.

In 2007 the Whistleblower told The Audit Commission about the Council taking too much money from some people in Wirral.

The Audit Commission is a Government organisation that makes sure Councils do the right thing with money.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2008 the Council paid some money to the Whistleblower so he would leave the Council and not be a nuisance any more.

Although the Whistleblower did not work for the Council any more he still kept trying to get them to pay back the money they had taken from the people in the three houses.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wednesday 23 September this story will be talked about at a meeting, so that Councillors can decide what to do next.

The meeting will be at 6 o'clock in the evening at Wallasey Town Hall. Anybody can go to the meeting to find out what is said.

.

Wirral Council admits "unlawful" charging policy for vulnrable people.

Liverpool Daily Post - by Liam Murphy,

VULNERABLE people being cared for by a social services department were systematically overcharged to the tune of more than £100,000, a report has revealed.

The so-called “special charging policy” was applied at three locations in Wirral – but nowhere else in the borough.

Fifteen people were overcharged a total of £116,000, with the sums ranging from “a few hundred pounds to over £15,000”.

The long-awaited report, which will be presented to a special council meeting next Wednesday, admits the charges to those in “supported living” accommodation were unlawful.

It says the “special charging policy” was applied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, between 1997 and 2006 – but not at other establishments.

It said: “Until April, 2003, the charges levied were, on balance, probably reasonable and lawful.

“However, between April, 2003, when fairer charging should have been brought in, and February, 2006, when fairer charging was actually introduced at ‘in-house’ supporting living units in Wirral, the charges were probably unreasonable, so far as the charges exceeded what would have been levied under fairer charging.

“To that extent, the charges levied were also unlawful.”

Wirral Council’s internal audit report also acknowledges no evidence could be found that the policy had been approved by councillors until the final week of completing the document.

But minutes from a meeting in September, 1997, appeared to show the necessary approval was given.

The report said: “Wirral did not implement fairer charging for service users residing at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road until February 1, 2006.

“This delay is hard to justify in any circumstances, especially given it had a clearly adverse financial impact on vulnerable service users.”

The report also says if the charging policy was lawful up to 2003, the council lost out on income of £300,000 by not applying the charge across Wirral. It also says delays in assessing users of the service cost the council a further £156,000 between 2003 and 2006.

The case was raised by a whistleblower who has since left the authority.

A council spokesperson said: “We would like to express its appreciation to the whistleblower for raising these matters and providing evidence to the investigation.

“Since this investigation began, internal procedures for highlighting such concerns have been improved.

“Members are being asked to consider requesting the director of adult social services seeks cabinet and/or council approval to make appropriate reimbursements in cases where service users may have been overcharged.”

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

Wirral Whistleblower vindicated!

Wirral Council's Internal Audit Report and five appendices, which run to 74 pages online (in which the word 'Whistleblower' appears 79 times) are a tour de force of circumlocution, designed so that only the most determined reader will wade through to the end.

However just one paragraph encapsulates all that is necessary. The Wirral Whistleblower has been vindicated, as it says:

Over three years have elapsed since the Whistleblower submitted the initial formal Grievance. Only following Internal Audit’s investigation has the Council formally recognised that almost all the Whistleblower’s concerns [in relation to charging practices at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road between 1997 and 2006 and the Council’s delay in introducing Fairer Charging at all ‘in house’ Supported Living Units] were legitimate.

One question posed in the report is "Were the Whistleblower’s allegations in relation to Fairer Charging and Supported Living validated by Internal Audit’s findings?" and answers the Whistleblower's six concerns:

a) A Special Charging Policy was levied at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road between 1997 and 2006.
VALIDATED

b) The Special Charging Policy was not approved by Members and was thus unlawful.
Only shown to be unfounded very recently.

c) Those charges were also excessive.
VALIDATED between 2003 and 2006

d) The Council lost large sums of money due to a failure to assess service users at other Supported Living Units across Wirral prior to 2006.
VALIDATED

e) The Council delayed unreasonably in implementing Fairer Charging for service users at Supported Living Units and this had an adverse financial consequence for the service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road.
VALIDATED

f) The Council should reimburse the service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road for monies that were ‘unlawfully levied over a prolonged period of time’.
MEMBERS SHOULD RECOMMEND IMPLIMENATION

Regarding b) above, the report says:

The only point of substance raised by the Whistleblower in relation to Fairer Charging and Supported Living and not validated by Internal Audit is the matter of Members’ approval of the principle of the ‘Special Charging Policy’ at the Social Services Committee on 3 September 1997. However, until earlier this month other current DASS officers appear to have been unaware of that decision.

And it is at this point that the report's carefully-constructed edifice suffers a catastrophic structural failure. If, as is claimed, current DASS officers were unaware of the Social Services Committee's approval of the 'Special Charging Policy' then on what authority were they making the charges?



.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1. Between 2003 and 2006, service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton, were subject to excessive charging totalling £116,300.

7.2. Due to the delay in undertaking financial assessments there has been a potential loss of income to the Council of £456,400 (being £300,000 prior to April 2003 and £156,400 post March 2003).

7.3. Any reimbursement of excess charge will require formal Member approval. This will require Cabinet approval and, if the funding cannot be met within existing resources, it will also require Council approval. It is recommended that any costs of reimbursement or other action are funded from the Department of Adult Social Service's Revenue Budget.


.

They will have their little jokes ...

5.11.8 All officers involved in this investigation would like to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower for raising these matters and for providing evidence to the investigation. Members may wish to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower’s actions as part of their decision.

6.13 All officers involved in this investigation would like to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower for raising these matters and for providing evidence to the investigation. Members may also wish to express their appreciation of the Whistleblower’s actions as part of their decision.

The hollow laughter will surely be reverberating around Westminster House and the Town Hall this morning ...


.
.

A timeline of procrastination

2000

• Whistleblower first raised concerns regarding the illegal charging and financial abuse of vulnerable people

2006

• Whistleblower made formal disclosures under the Public Information Disclosure Act

May 2007

• Whistleblower's first grievance appeal

July 2007

• Whistleblower's reconvened grievance appeal

September 2008

• Audit Commission report published
  
• Councillors were made aware of further allegations of illegal charging and financial abuse of vulnerable people
  
• Audit and Risk Management Committee requested Internal auditors' report and investigation into why Whistleblower was forced to go to Audit Commission

November 2008

• Wirral Globe revealed Whistleblower was paid £45,000 to “go away and keep quiet”.

• New evidence was given to Director of Law at the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting

• Two senior officers from Department of Adult Social Services were suspended on full pay pending investigation into the new evidence

• An Independent Investigator appointed and started interviews

December 2008

• Report due from Independent Investigator

• Audit and Risk Management Committee resolved that the Director of Finance present the internal audit report in relation to the charging policy to the next meeting of the Committee.

January 2009

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

February 2009

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

March 2009

• Audit Commission report found Whistleblower's allegations to be "largely justified" and a failure in the Council's own system for dealing with complaints

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

April 2009

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

May 2009

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

June 2009

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

July 2009

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee
• Disciplinary hearings concerning suspended officers eventually took place
• Suspended officers return to work as if nothing had happened
• Wirral Council promises "a special meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee as soon as possible."
• Date of 1 September set for special meeting.
  
• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

August 26 2009

• September meeting postponed

• No Internal Audit report published or presented to Committee

September 2009

• No Internal Audit report published as promised

It's become obvious to everyone with even a passing interest in this case that Wirral Borough Council is running scared.

This situation is wholly of the Council's making but the only person who has suffered in any way is the one person who tried to do the right thing.

Except for the vulnerable people who have been financially abused, of course, but they don't count, do they?

.

.

More delays ...

The following email was sent on Friday 11 September by Mark Delap, Department of Law, HR and Asset Management

TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Please note that as a result of ongoing work in relation to the internal audit PIDA report, the publication of the agenda for the Special Meeting of the Committee to be held on 23 September has been delayed. Consequently, it will not be delivered to members this evening. However, it is anticipated that the report will be cleared early next week and I will ensure that you receive immediate notification of its publication.
The agenda for the ordinary scheduled meeting has been published and is now available on the Council's intranet. You can access it by clicking here .

How many times has the report gone back to Internal Audit with the order "Must Do Better Next Time" scrawled across it in red ink?

Originally due in December 2008, then before the postponed 1 September meeting, the report was promised for two weeks ago, last week, and now this week.

The cynic would ask if Wirral's trying to hold onto it until the Libraries report comes out?

Do they think they can bury it, or hide the truths it should contain?

As our American Cousins would say "No way, Jose"!

..

The thoughts of Joe/Jo Public

From Wirral Globe

MX, Wirral says... 24 Sep 09
From what I witnessed last night John Webb and Cllr.McLoughlin should do the honourable thing and resign NOW.
But they wouldn't know how to do the honourable thing would they?.
I wanted to be sick listening to what had gone on.Beyond belief.

piggymalone, wirral says... 24 Sep 09
My contacts within Social Services have told me on a number of occasions that this "rip off" of vulnerable people was widely known about by many members of the social services team but in the end only one person had the b*lls to stand up and be counted. God bless him for standing up to the bullies and crooks in the town hall and I sincerely hope that the pressure has been lifted from his shoulders

Natasha Eubank, Oxton says... 24 Sep 09
How can the Council honestly expect us to continue to maintain trust in their commitment of working for the good of Wirral Residents now?

We have already been betrayed on an unparalleled scale through the heinous SAR.

But now, now the most vulnerable amongst us have the been the victims of the most appalling breach of trust by Council Officers.

Let us be clear about what has happened here. At any one point in time over the last 10 years or so, the Council could have put this right. Individual Council Officers elected NOT to. They were aware this was, in effect, institutional financial abuse, and they chose NOT to put it right.

They discussed it in the most cynical manner in inter-departmental emails. They use expressions like 'Cover's Blown' when referring to the potential disclosure of overcharging. They chose NOT to put it right.

I believe there are other ongoing issues which demonstrate that the Council has a reluctance to rectify financial abuse in such services.

So, when along came a person who voiced his concerns, this was a massive inconvenience.

At this point, the Council could have put this right. They chose NOT to. They chose to grind one man into the ground, rather than pay back some of the most vulnerable people in this borough the money they were rightly owed.

These are the people who are supposed to be working for our good.

Two of the most senior departmental staff who were implicated are back in post, by the way, the others, and there were a few, jumped ship (or were they pushed?), before this became public.

You see, because of this, we, the residents are going to get hammered by the council again in the next few years. We are facing massive cuts in public spending. This is inevitable. The Department of Adult Social Services are so far down the financial hole, the end result of this (and it's unlikely to be a hundred-odd thousand, but considerably more) is REALLY going to hurt.

It's going to hurt US!

Ultimately, we will suffer for this. The most vulnerable people on Wirral will suffer for this. Because of the high-handed arrogance and dishonesty of council officers.

Do we really want these people working for us? Senior Officers who view Wirral as their own personal playground, where decisions that affect the quality of peoples lives can be decided in the time it takes to write an email?

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
Natasha, thank you for taking the time to write, and I can't disagree with you.

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
piggy, absolutely spot on! I too wish Martin Morton all the very best and thank him for what he was brave enough to do.

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says... 25 Sep 09
It's frankly disgraceful that this mealy-mouthed response by WBC, presumably backed by the full approval of the Director of Law, is still not telling the truth!

It reads:
"The report discussed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee focused on the issues investigated by the Audit Commission, namely the council’s application of the Department of Health’s Fairer Charging Policy and arrangements for the commissioning and monitoring of contracts for supported living and supported people services."

That is, at best misleading and at worst a downright lie.

The minutes of the Committee, dated 30 September 2008 show:
Item 20
Resolved (3) "That the officers be requested to investigate whether a charging policy had been in place dating back to 1999 and, if so, whether or not it had not been
approved by members."

At the meeting Internal Audit had to admit under close questioning that Martin Morton had given them 14 pages of documentation covering this but they had only bothered with "the bit we were looking into".

Why did they not speak up when the Committee was questioning exactly when Social Services officers realised the charges were unreasonable?

Why did they not say they already had the proof? For the same reason they told the same committee that I had not provided them with specific information - to assist with the monumental cover-up the Council's STILL trying to maintain?

It was only after my Councillor - who chairs the Committee - persisted several times on my behalf that they crawled back to admit they "had found a pencilled note of the information"

Last Wednesday, Madam Chairman was so wedded to her party's line that she protect the ruling Lab/LibDem stranglehold of the Council at all costs that she could not find even a soupcon of courage to ignore the bleatings in her ear from the Director of Law.

At a public external inquiry the right people would be asked the right questions, and more unpalatable truths would emerge.

Spiffy, Wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
Natasha - *clap* *clap* *clap* - very well said.

piggymalone, wirral says... 25 Sep 09
I assume that Martin Morton is following all the outcomes of this case and is also recovering from the mentral trauma imposed on him by our lords and masters in Wallasey Town Hall.
Well, Martin it would appear to me that, rightly, you have 100% support from the residents of Wirral and indeed, from my contacts, numerous members of the social services team. Certain Wirral Council officers and councillors are committing the criminal offence of "malfeasance in public office" not only in this case but other matters and its about time that legal action was taken against the guilty parties.

Natasha Eubank, Oxton says... 25 Sep 09
Malfeasance is EXACTLY what has happened here. The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines say that the elements of this offence are when:

A public officer acting as such;
Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder;
Without reasonable excuse or justification.

In view of this, perhaps Cllr. Southwood and Bill Norman (Director of Law) can explain why they stated a police investigation WASN'T appropriate in this instance??????

GotTheirNumber, Wirral says... 25 Sep 09
I hope the Globe goes after them...

They will, won't they?

Bill Gates, wirral says... 25 Sep 09
Councillor Mountney and Martin Morton would appear to believe that the financial abuse of disabled people in this case is the tip of the iceburgh, that is certainly the case.
I can confirm that the overcharging of disabled service users on the wirral still continues today with the full knowledge of the Wirral Social Services department and at least one of the officers that had been suspended. This abuse is present outside of the locations mentioned in the report and when exposed will form another phase of the Wirral Gate saga!

Marleys Ghost, Wirral says... 24 Sep 09
It is now clear to everyone that the charges made in the Moreton supported living establishments were unlawful and should therefore be repaid. The debate now centres on whether these charges were excessive and thus unlawful from their inception in 1997 or whether they only became unlawful following Fairer Charges for Care which should have been implemented in 2003 but, in this case, was delayed until 2006. I think that plenty of evidence has been put forward to show that, beyond any reasonable doubt, these charges were excessive from the outset. They were more than double that of the highest charging neighbouring authority, and this at a time when most authorities were providing free care. Having Wirral’s Internal Audit paw over this ground for yet another month only serves to delay and obscure things still further. The Authority should now get on with reimbursing this money to these people as quickly as possible and in a way that will not affect their benefits. However, I do agree with the Committee in saying that we still need further information. What we now need to know why was there a lengthy and expensive cover-up, who sanctioned it, and why the whistleblower, who we now know to be Martin Morton, was treated so appallingly? This is not a matter that can be left to Internal Audit as they are implicated by their own inaction in the past. The only way that these matters can be aired properly is for there to be a full independent public inquiry.

piggymalone, wirral says... 24 Sep 09
Never mind public enquiry, malfeasance in public office is a very serious criminal offence and therefore the police should be called to investigate.

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
100% agree with the former Jacob. You too have a good point piggy.

GotTheirNumber, Wirral says... Fri 25 Sep 09
Maddox and Miller - and Webb, to a certain extent - should hang their heads in shame.

As always, though, there is more to this - and I've already passed it on to the Globe.
Maddox and Miller - and Webb, to a certain extent - should hang their heads in shame. As always, though, there is more to this - and I've already passed it on to the Globe.

From Wirral Globe

GotTheirNumber, Wirral says... 23 Sep 09
Fi, fo, foe, fum, I smell the desperate measures of PR department gum.

Do they REALLY expect anyone to believe this?

A missing document found at the 11th hour?

How very bloody convenient.

Next we'll be told the 60000+ who protested against library closures were "probably mistaken".
What a bunch of (alleged) crooks.

piggymalone, wirral says... 23 Sep 09
I have it on good authority that numerous council employees were aware of this overcharging. It is now recognised that this over charging was illegal. Knowingly committing an illegal action is the very serious criminal offence of malfeasance in public office and I am at a loss as to understand why the police have not been called in to investigate.

Spiffy, Wallasey says... 24 Sep 09
Whats all this "on balance, probably reasonable and lawful" ? Overcharging vulnerable people was either reasonable or it wasnt. It was either lawful or it wasnt. So which is it ?
If just one case was unreasonable and unlawful then that one case needs looking at and those responsible held accountable.
It beats me why councils are even allowed to audit themselves.

MX, Wirral says... 24 Sep 09
Sham 2009.
I knew this case was about Council corruption but it gets worse.This is the same case where suspended officers returned to work isn't it?.
Is anyone going to take responsibility for this unholy mess or do we just accept that this is how the Council operates.
Taking money from vulnerable people because you're up the swanee.How low can you go?.
Sham 2009. I knew this case was about Council corruption but it gets worse.This is the same case where suspended officers returned to work isn't it?. Is anyone going to take responsibility for this unholy mess or do we just accept that this is how the Council operates. Taking money from vulnerable people because you're up the swanee.How low can you go?.

slumdog, wallasey says... 25 Sep 09
Mx, I dont think you can get any lower. Worms belly maybe?

.

© copyright individual authors . Reproduced under fair use for the purposes of comment, news reporting and their preservation
.

Stop the clock!

It seems that Wirral Council can stop the clock when it comes to FOI requests! The latest exchange between Kane [sic] Corrin and J Locker is as follows:

If the Public Body seeks clarification of the FOI request, as I have done on Wirral's behalf; the Clock stops on the request until the clarification is received. I received your clarification on 10 September 2009 regarding exactly what you meant by "paid off" and your request is now being processed.
I am therefore unable to request an internal review for you in relation to your request.
Kind Regards
Kane Corrin

to which J Locker has responded:

Many thanks for you reply. My request for an internal enquiry was based on standard practice used with regard to FOIA requests and upon advice received from WDTK.com

However I am more than happy that you now seek a little more time to answer my enquiry , in full , as obviously you are now satisfied you understand what "paid off" means.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Will these difficult questions be answered after all? Has the Council run out of excuses not to answer them? Has Wirral Informaion Manager sought advice from a higher legal authority?

Stand by for the next thrilling installment of - cue drum roll - Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds, an everyday story of Council folk.

.


.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LAST DAY

J Locker has responded to Wirral Council's Information Manager as follows:

Many thanks for your reply. It is disappointing that after all this time my initial request is still being met with apparent prevarication and semantics. I am sure we all know exactly what I am asking and exactly what I mean by "paid off" , in fact you inferred as much in your statement....

"The terms on which an employee agrees to terminate his employment are confidential and it would be unlawful for the Council to provide details to the public of such matters."

However Let me see if I can help you by rephrasing my questions again.

In the last three years has any Wirral Council employee received any payment as part of a compromise agreement , exchange for terminating their employment with Wirral Council . [ I think we have already established that they have ]

How much were they paid and where in my copy of the the Council's audited accounts will I find the entries.

The Council has until 10 September (today) in which to respond.
.

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LATEST

Wirral Council's Information Manager, Jane Corrin, has responded to J Locker as follows:

Thank you for your email below. I am unable to add anything further to my reply of 11th August, unless you can clarify for me what you mean by "paid off".

Absolutelt unbelievable!

. .

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LATEST

J Locker has responded to Wirral Council as follows:

Many thanks.

Having established beyond doubt that the Council has paid off at least one Whistleblower can I refer back to my original question , which was non specific and within the guidelines of both FOIA and DPA , which was ...

"Under the terms of the FOIA could I ask for details of the number of "whistleblowers" the council has "paid off " in the last three years together with details of the amounts paid.

In addition I would request details of the source of those funds paid out [ As detailed in the Council's accounting practice] ie : From which sector of funding were the payments made ?"

I should stress that I am not asking for personal details about the Whistleblower[s] but am enquiring from a budgetary point of view….How Many , How Much , and where in the Council’s Annual accounts will I find the entries…..in fact in order to ensure that you do not contravene the Data Protection Act I will modify my request even further…

“How much has been paid ? “ and “Where in the Council’s Annual accounts will I find the entries?”

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

The council has until 10 September in which to respond

.

.


.

Council workers' £½m pay-off

A link posted in a comment to the previous post leads to an article dated Thursday, July 24, 2008, on This is South Devon and Herald Express website.

The article is interesting in two respects, highlighted in the following quotes from it.

TORBAY Council's 're-shaping' is costing £500,000 in redundancy and other payments for shedding four top officers.

The total cost of the golden handshake for this round of the restructuring is £521,806.

Between them the four — environment director Mike Yeo, strategic director Paul Lucas, legal chief Bill Norman and head of children's services Margaret Dennison — have received £193,826 in redundancy payments.

Another £300,000-plus has had to be paid to their pensions provider to compensate for lost payments as they are taking their pensions early.

It continues,

The council insisted on an official Freedom of Information request from the Herald Express before it would release the latest redundancy payments.

Mrs Dennison received £59,829, Mr Lucas £53,730, Mr Norman £31,823 and Mr Yeo £48,442

And,

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

The commenter poses a very valid question, who gave the council's information officer the legal advice?

And if it is legal for Torbay council to "provide details to the public" about "the terms on which an employee agrees to terminate his employment", why is it "unlawful" in Wirral?

.

.

.

Whistleblowers....number and amounts paid, source of funds-LATEST

Wirral Council's Information Officer, Jane Corrin, has responded to this Freedom of Information request

Good Morning,
Thank you very much for your request below. I am sorry but after taking legal advice I must advise you that, the information requested is not obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act.

This is because under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act there is an exemption from disclosure in relation to personal data where disclosure would contravene one of the data protection principles.

The first data protection principle prohibits the processing of personal data (including disclosure) if to do so would be either unlawful or unfair.

The terms on which an employee agrees to terminate his employment are confidential and it would be unlawful for the Council to provide details to the public of such matters.

I hope this has clarified matters.
.

.

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

Public Interest disclosures by Wirral Council employees

A Freedom of Information request has been made to the Audit Commission

Under the terms of the FOIA could I ask how many Wirral Council employees have made disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 between January 1 2000 and today's date, broken down by department.

In addition I would like to know how many of those employees are still employed by the council as of today's date.

The Audit Commission has until 29th September 2009 to respond.

.
.

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