Wirral Council admits owing £244,000 to vulnerable care home tenants

14th January 2010

Wirral Globe - by Leigh Marles


The outcome of a "whistleblower" investigation could tonight see Wirral Council agreeing to repay almost a quarter of a million pounds to 16 care home residents.

Elderly and vulnerable people living in homes at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, all in Moreton, were systematically overcharged by Adult Social Services for seven years.

The scandal only came to light after former council employee Martin Morton revealed the overcharging to the Wirral Globe in November, 2008.

He had raised his concerns several times with his managers, but claimed he was ignored, bullied and driven out of his job.

Following our exclusive reports, two senior officers were suspended but, after disciplinary hearings, were later reinstated.

The stress of blowing the whistle drove Mr Martin to the verge of a nervous breakdown and he was subsequently hospitalised.

He was given a £45,000 pay-off from the council to leave his job in social services.

An internal audit to examine Mr Martin's claims was eventually ordered and reported its findings in September of last year.

It ruled that people living in the three homes under a so-called "special charging policy" had been overcharged and that the policy was unlawful.

The town hall has set aside £68,000 to repay the residents - but the total sum needed is £244,000.

And a report to tonight's cabinet meeting makes clear the authority is not going to just hand over a cheque for the money it owes.

Instead, the council's director of law, Bill Norman, is recommending that officers write to individuals "advising" them to make a claim against the authority.

Mr Norman says that residents on means-tested benefits may encounter unexpected difficulties if they suddenly come into a substantial sum of money.

He says: "There is the potential impact upon each affected individual’s current financial position.

"The impact of the reimbursement of a significant sum of money, when combined with any capital resources an individual may already have, may have wider implications that may not be initially appreciated by those in receipt of means-tested benefits.

"The regulations for such benefits are framed in such a way as to preclude individuals or those acting on their behalf from taking such actions, in any way, which may be regarded as an evasion of benefit regulations."

Mr Norman recommends that individuals will need to be notified that they may have a claim against the council in respect of the "deemed overpayment."

"They will need to consider their positions, and if they believe they have a legitimate entitlement, make a claim for reimbursement against the council.

"It would be advisable, and indeed highly desirable, that each individual be given access to independent advice in formulating such a view and potential claim."

He suggests the council should steer tenants with a potential claim towards the Wirral Advocacy Service, a charity which offers free legal advice.

The cabinet will be asked to authorise reimbursing the 16 people who are owed money.

Officers will be told to write to individuals and their carers and advocates informing them of this, and inviting them to seek appropriate advice "so as to ensure they make an informed decision if they choose to submit a claim."

.

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

Comments on the above story, published in the Wirral Globe

statictom, Bromborough says...
2:08pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Sounds like the council are trying to blackmail these people. You have to apply for money which you have been overcharged but it may effect your benefits. They will try anything. This is money that these people have already paid in charges. They should seek legal advice and sue the council not just for the overpayment but for compensation for being treated in this way. Just sounds like the council trying to worm its way out of the matter - it would not have come to this if they had not been overcharged. But because the people concerned are elderly the council will try their best to put obstacles in their way. No disrespect to the Wirral Advocacy Service who offer good advice, this is a job for a good solicitor to represent all people overcharged.

---

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
2:17pm Thu 14 Jan 10

It is about time that behaviour of this kind was made a criminal offence.I saw ythis happen to a client of mine twenty odd years ago . Driven to retire from the NHS through ill health caused by stress after ytrying to clean up a Theaters in a group of hospitals. She refused to sign off on theaters that it was her responsibilty to certify as clean.
Death by negligence in the NHS or care should attract a manslaughter charge not a slap on the wrist.

---

statictom, Bromborough says...
2:24pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Further to my last note - these people should all claim what they are entitled to. THEN IF NECESSARY WHEN THEY RECEIVE PAYMENT - GIVE IT TO A LOVED ONE/RELATIVE, ETC/CHARITY - anyone other than letting the council keep it. This way it shoud not effect benefits.

---

hugo2008, Wirral says...
2:31pm Thu 14 Jan 10

If this does not result in some heads rolling from very senior positions in WBC employ, then there is something very seriously wrong, and a public enquiry is required. The sheer scandal of the situation Mr Morton was placed in was bad enough, but the callous taking advantage of those unable to defend themselves is a public disgrace. The entire Wirral Council Executive should hang their heads in shame. Plus our so called elected council representatives must also accept some responsibility for this appalling episode, that went for some considerable time and to their knowledge.

---

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
2:38pm Thu 14 Jan 10

So they are basically saying "yeah, we stole the money. So what ? Want it back ? Try it. The SS will have it off you anyway so we don't really give a toss what happens."
....
Of course, the council Should be tackling this themselves and issuing cheques to everyone they stole from with a full and frank apology admitting liability.
...
Defrauding and now blackmailing the vulnerable and sick. Has this council no shame, no sense of common decency whatsoever ? How low can they go ?
...
I'd like to see one single SS officer stand up and publicly try to justify reducing anyone's benefits in this case. Any monies repaid under these circumstances are not compensation, they are not savings, they are not capital. They were stolen.
...
MPs that represent these people should be coming forward immediately to protect and fight for them not leaving it to the individuals to fight this alone. If there was ever a time to step up and do what they are paid for its now.
...
Where is Frank Field on this ??

---

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
2:49pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Before you slag off WBC compare them to TOTBAY BC. They are reviewing employees contracts with up to 25% pay cuts in mind.
The one group of employees exempt from this exercise are the executives of the Council.
As recent immagrant from Devon
I must congratulate the park keepers. Your Health services are better on the Whole. Highways however have made me raise my eyebrows. Potholes are more common in this area, and very very slowly treated.
The public are much the same, always shouting for more services provided they can get others to pay for them. But then we are all British arn't we?

---

Veridici, Wirral says...
3:10pm Thu 14 Jan 10

It's disgraceful that this Director of Law has decreed that people with learning disabilities have to claim back SOME of the money which was taken illegally by the Council because they "might" be eligible for a refund.

The amount involved is only HALF of what was stolen by the Counci. What has happened to the other half? You might well ask.

The same Director of Law has already decreed that it would be ILLEGAL to assess people retrospectively, yet that is precisely what is being done now.

Instead of refunding the money taken illegally in full the Council will now ILLEGALLY assess those people RETROSPECTIVELY and charge them what they MIGHT have charged them IF a certain decision had been made eight years ago.

This cannot be decided on what MIGHT have been or SHOULD have been. It has to be on what actually happened.

---

Veridici, Wirral says...
3:23pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Ivorromaleyn, you mention Torbay. Is it any coincidence that Wirral's current Director of Law came to Wirral from Torbay?
.
A closer investigation of that on-going 'relationship' would prove fruitful ...

---

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
3:49pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Statictom. Your comments would apply, if the application of common sense was recognised in law.
However despite appeals to Common sense from Rosie Winterton and David Cameron
Political correctness rules OK.
Veridici NO! I was not aware of the
Wirral's Director of law's origins.
However He might tell us if it is true that common sense and morality have to be abandoned at the door of Law School?

---

piggymalone, wirral says...
5:23pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Isnt it about time our honest, hard working councillors stood up to Norman and told him about morals.
Councillors can overturn recommendations from council officers, so lets have some guts shown by our elected representatives.....
some hope!

---

piggymalone, wirral says...
5:28pm Thu 14 Jan 10

And to Martin Morton, it appears to me that 100% of the population of Wirral support your actions, dont give up, the only people after you are the crooks in Wallasey Town Hall and they are showing signs of nervous guilt.

---

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
5:38pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Piggy Malone is right.
Why don't the public petition the Queen to recognise Mt Morton in New Years Honours list.
He is much more worthy than some of the other jobs worths.
Her address is Buckingham Palace in a joint called London.

---

TheLooseCannon, Wirral says...
6:19pm Thu 14 Jan 10

The truly disgusting aspect of this is that the Council is already laying the groundwork for clawing back everything it refunds.

I'm sure that they could, if the will was there, negotiate over the Income Support regulations as there must be some way in which these refunds can be ignored in exceptional circumstances - and they don't come much more exceptional!

Instead of doing that they are already issuing warnings that once the money is refunded these people will no longer be able to claim Income Support, Housing Benefit, and other support benefits.

No doubt that would enable the Council to reclaim every penny, and more.

This council, this Director of Law, these officers, these councillors all have to be stopped and if the only way that can happen is by the carers and next-of-kin dragging the Council through the courts, then so be it.

The Council has had nine years to right these wrongs. If these spineless Councillors don't do the right thing now, and continue to hide behind each other, then they are all as guilty as the DASS bullies.

---

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
6:54pm Thu 14 Jan 10

I have already written to her Majesty pointing out that she is about the only person left in the Kingdom that might be able to exrcise common sense.
Bill Norman I fear is a lawyer, and is unable to apply common sense or decency
I have requested her recognition of Mr Morton's services to the community.I have also pointed to the declining standards in our public administration and the need for a signal from the top.

---

MX, Wirral says...
6:59pm Thu 14 Jan 10

This case is mindblowing.The so -called "whistleblower" (sorry Martin Morton) seems to have been right in every aspect of his claims and it has been reported in the press and on a previous post that he has stated that £500K is owed by the Council to disabled people.

Something doesn't add up. Talking of which this case seems to have involved cover-up,negligence,
incompetence,financi
al abuse,delay,waste of public money and sheer malice by the Council if Mr.Morton's claims of bullying are to be believed and yet he was the one to lose his job.As I said mindblowing!.

What happened to that promised bullying investigation by the way?.
If all this money is owed it should ABSOLUTELY be paid back but I would suggest NOT by the long-suffering Council Tax payer.I would suggest the "Shirley Porter" approach and all those Councillors and Council officers who have covered this up should be surcharged on the grounds of their "malfesance" and personally pay this money back.Then and only then will those responsible for this mess be held accountable.
Oh and I agree about the OBE!.
Well I mean, hasn't Steve Maddox got one?.

---

piggymalone, wirral says...
8:31pm Thu 14 Jan 10

There has rarely been a Wirral Council "incident" that has seen 100% criticism from the general public but this affair has rallied the support of the electorate for one man and shamed the responsible councillors and officers.
They didnt even have the guts tonight to over-rule Norman with his reccommendation to force the victims to apply to the council in writing for a refund of the overpayments.....abs
olute disgrace

---

Ivorromaleyn, New Brighton says...
9:42pm Thu 14 Jan 10

ask the Queento signal our disgust please . It is the only option left in this so called democracy

---

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
9:47pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Perhaps the most hypocritical too-faced twisted comment so far:
"The regulations for such benefits are framed in such a way as to preclude individuals or those acting on their behalf from taking such actions, in any way, which may be regarded as an evasion of benefit regulations."
...
The implication is that even to receive a substantial refund of monies stolen is tantamount to benefit fraud. The thieves are accusing the victims of being thieves themselves.
...
This stinks SO bad.

---

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
9:48pm Thu 14 Jan 10

*two-faced

---

piggymalone, wirral says...
10:25pm Thu 14 Jan 10

I cant argue that refunding these overpayments may well affect peoples benefits but isnt that up to the person in question to decide and deal with, that is none of Normans business. He is obviously trying to frighten the claimants into not applying for the money back, what a.......... this man is

---

MX, Wirral says...
10:28pm Thu 14 Jan 10

Yes Spiffy this stinks (to high heaven) and all those responsible should go to hell in a handcart.

---

Spiffy, Wallasey says...
1:23am Fri 15 Jan 10

Before I retire for the night I wondered..... how exactly would any SS officer declare receipt in repayment of the stolen monies as Anything other than the income that had ALREADY been assessed in calculation of due benefits ?
...
It is certainly not EXTRA income by any stretch of the imagination.
...
Perhaps the globe can conduct an interview with a senior SS officer and get the official lowdown on this particular issue. These threats should be countered wherever possible and I think that the local press can do more - in their official capacity - to dig deeper for the facts.

---

slumdog, wallasey says...
7:26am Fri 15 Jan 10

I have nothing to add to what has already been said here. This is very very wrong indeed. it does not surprise me that it should continue in the same unjust fashion. Contrary to popular belief it is not an easy thing to claim benefits of any kind, whether throgh local councils or other agencies. It can become tortuous to the point that only the very desperate persist. I hope somebody does so on behalf of these people, some of whom may have been put off already by the mere mention of more form filling.

---

Veridici, Wirral says...
9:24am Fri 15 Jan 10

Conspicuous by its absence is any comment - any comment at all - from the chair of the Social Care & Health Committee who has been overseeing this for years.
.
Cllr McLoughlin must be asked about her prior knowledge of this 'special charging policy', and her failure to comment at last November's council meeting because the matter was "of potential interest to a personal friend".
.
She must name that personal friend and explain why that friendship should take precedence over her Council duties to vulnerable people in our community.
.
She is unfit to continue to hold that office and must resign NOW!

---

hugo2008, Wirral says...
11:38am Fri 15 Jan 10

Where do our National MPs stand in all this debacle, they will soon be asking for your vote. Give it to them in no uncertain manner.
Cllr Mcloughlin, normally has a mouth big enough to shovel sandwiches into, what does she have to say, with her inside knowledge.
Steve Maddox is the so called leader, surprisingly very silent on this issue, I wonder why.
Come on Martin Morton write your memoirs or a book, certain to sell many thousands just in Wirral Alone.

---

djrimmer, Wallasey says...
12:19pm Fri 15 Jan 10

Hugo, a very good point about the local MP`s. I cant remember one of them commenting on this case. Are they keeping their heads down for a reason? Where they complicant in the case? Do they have something to hide? is it a case of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns? me thinks it may well be.

---

PaulCa, Wallasey says...
11:57pm Fri 15 Jan 10

When commenting here, the Globe cites personal responsibility and states "Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious". Hence there are no comments from the crooks involved.......

---

piggymalone, wirral says...
11:10am Sat 16 Jan 10

I think the affected constituents were Chis Blakeley`s and Simon Mountneys
(if I am wrong I appologise) and I am well aware that Chis in particular trawls this site and in the past has commented. Chris, I think its about time you broke the silence and let all these voters know where you stand on this issue. Martin Morton and the overcharge residents need support not only from the public but some honest politicians if there are any left. So come on Chris and Simon, it was your constituents that were ripped off

---

MX, Wirral says...
1:45pm Sat 16 Jan 10

Wasn't Councillor Simon Mountney responsible for bringing this matter to such prominence in the first place Piggy?.
Wasn't there an article in the Globe where he called investigations carried out by the Council as a "sham"?.
It's certainly not him that needs prompting on this matter it's the likes of Cllr Bridson and Cllr.McLoughlin who as far as I can make out are the Councillors overseeing this area of Council work.
An earlier post referred to Cllr.McLoughlin failing to comment because the matter was of "potential interest to a personal friend".This is disgraceful.When somebody's personal loyalties take precedence over their civic responsibilities they need to make up their mind what's more important -dinner parties or disability rights.

---

piggymalone, wirral says...
5:22pm Sat 16 Jan 10

Yes, you are correct MX but I was wanting to know what their (Cllr Mountney and Cllr Blakeley) reaction was to Normans despicapable move to put the responsibility on to the affected people to have to make a claim. Not one councillor has commented on this uttlery disgracful move by a non elected officer. Yes, I know the move was approved by cabinet but that doesnt mean every councillor approves of such a decision. I suspect this will be a case of whips telling members to keep their mouths shut, except maybe in the case of the conservatives. I am surprised and disappointed the independent candidate, David Kirwan, has kept quiet over this very didturbing and serious matter

---

MX, Wirral says...
10:02pm Sat 16 Jan 10

"I am surprised and disappointed the independent candidate, David Kirwan, has kept quiet over this very disturbing and serious matter".

Please don't be disappointed and don't be surprised Piggy.Have a good night's sleep.

piggymalone, wirral says...
10:55pm Sat 16 Jan 10

MX, I suppose I was being facetious concerning Mr Kirwan particularly as you probably know, I support independent candidates through the Residents Alliance. Independents have no party whips to bow down to so I would expect them to comment on this very serious matter, but hey ho, you could argue that David Kirwan was not elected as an independent but only threw teddy in the corner when he fell out with the tories.
Anyhow good night to you and all our other fellow contributors

.

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

Cheated abuse victims will have to claim refunds

According to a report by John Webb, Director of Adult Social Services, and quoting Bill Norman, Director of Law, the former residents of Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road who were financially abused by Wirral Council over a period of nine years, and cheated out of approximately half a million pounds, will have to make individual claims in order to get just some of their money back.

Sixteen individuals have been identified who fall within the remit of the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Management Committee. Of these three are deceased and five have moved out of the premises concerned.

The advice from the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management regarding the process for reimbursement is that individuals will need to be advised that they may have a claim against the Council in respect of the deemed “overpayment”. They will need to consider their positions and if they believe they have a legitimate entitlement, make a claim for reimbursement against the Council. It would be advisable, and indeed highly desirable, that each individual be given access to independent advice in formulating such a view and potential claim.

The cost of reimbursing all individuals who would be entitled to make a claim, should Cabinet approve the recommendations, is £241,482. An amount of £68,000 has been set aside in the accounts for such reimbursements so there is a potential shortfall of £173,485. The Adult Social Services Department has no resources available to meet this ‘oneoff’ cost and it is recommended that this be met from balances.

Recommendations
That Cabinet is asked to approve the recommendations of the Audit and Risk Management Committee:
(1) To implement the principle of reimbursement of service users at Bermuda Road, Curlew Way and Edgehill Road, Moreton between April 2003 and February 2006, insofar as the sums actually paid by an individual service user exceeded what they might reasonably have been required to pay had the Council implemented Fairer Charging in April 2003, by making, upon receipt of a legitimate claim, any appropriate reimbursement and/or to take any other appropriate restorative action.
(2) To approve the reimbursement of residents and former residents of Bermuda Road, Curlew Road and Edgehill Road, Moreton for the period dating back from March 2003 to December 2000, based on the difference between the “Special Charging Policy” and the wider review of Social Services charging approved by Members in July 2000, where the Council is in receipt of a legitimate claim; and/or to take any other appropriate restorative action.
(3) Cabinet is further asked to authorise officers to write (and confirm with appropriate other means) to individuals (and their carers and advocates) informing them of this decision and inviting them to seek appropriate advice so as to ensure they make an informed decision if they choose to submit a claim; and to provide sufficient information to advocates, acting on the individuals’ behalf, to ensure that the individuals can be fully advised of all relevant implications.

The report will be presented to a meeting of the Cabinet scheduled for next Thursday, 14 January 2010, in Committee Room 1 of Wallasey Town Hall, commencing at 6.15pm.

The meeting is open to members of the public.
.

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

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
.