to return to
A Really Rotten Borough
CLICK HERE
latest update 12 February 2010
............................................................

Wednesday, 30 September 2009

... 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
.

No comments:

Post a comment