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?



.