Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 24th November 2013

Wirral Council’s Social Services go from case closed to looking into bogus £8 foot massage charges for disabled adults

Wirral Council’s Social Services go from case closed to looking into bogus £8 foot massage charges for disabled adults

                                 

In the previous blog post the “Adult Protection Strategy Meeting” had decided “case closed” and that the money was for “service users to have a nice grave when they pass away“.

However within two months of deciding “case closed” and the police telling Wirral Council that they were “satisfied that this is not criminal” the case was reopened and further details emerge as you can see from the minutes of the Adult Protection Strategy Meeting below which are pages 338-340 of the appendices.

Metropolitan
Borough of Wirral

Adult Protection Subsequent Strategy Meeting

Name of victim: Newhaven Care Care Home

Time/date: 14.00pm, 30th September 05

Chair: (name blacked out) Service Manager

Introductions: (name blacked out) FSU, Merseyside Police
(name blacked out) CSCI
(name blacked out) CSCI
(name blacked out) Fraud, Job Centre Plus
(name blacked out) Team Manager, Contracts
(name blacked out) Service Manager
(name blacked out) Adult Protection Co-ordinator
(name blacked out) Minutes, Adult Protection

Apologies: None

Minutes from previous meeting: Agreed.

Actions from previous meeting – progress reports

CSCI to investigate financial affairs. An inspection will occur were and the current set up for managing service users finances will be looked at.

(name blacked out) went out and inspected Newhaven Care Care Home and felt that all seemed well but that (name blacked out) was not happy with the outcome. (name blacked out) later liaised with team manager (name blacked out) and both felt they needed to re-visit Newhaven Care Care Home. (name blacked out)’s finances were looked into further and it was discovered that in the records of the ingoing/outgoing balance was not matching and when asking (name blacked out) to produce the relevant paperwork they were unable too. (name blacked out) stated that they service users money was kept in tins in their rooms. When the tins were checked there was no money. (name blacked out) were both unable to state where the money had gone and both started to contradict themselves. CSCI informed (name blacked out) that they were either keeping the money or it was down to poor accounting. (name blacked out) replied that it was down to poor accounting.

CSCI then requested documents that (name blacked out) would have to produce within a few days after the inspection. These included whom (name blacked out) was a guardianship holder for. When producing these to CSCI it was felt that there documents were false. CSCI also noticed that (name blacked out) were using service users mobility money as a top up fee. (name blacked out) was very reluctant to give any other documents and stated (name blacked out) was unable to get them. CSCI have since not been able to get in contact with (name blacked out).

Update:

(name blacked out) pointed out that it stated in (name blacked out)’s new contract that mobility money would not be allowed as a top up fee.

(name blacked out) is unable to explain why there are so many gaps in the accounts. Concerns were raised as to where the money is going and why it is being paid in to (name blacked out)’s account if (name blacked out) is not an appointee. When CSCI asked (name blacked out) what accounts the service users had, (name blacked out) informed that they only had a Post Office account. (name blacked out) did not inform CSCI about the Halifax accounts (name blacked out) recently opened. CSCI are already aware of these accounts but did not let (name blacked out) know this.

When looking over the records (name blacked out) gave CSCI they noticed when service users go for a foot massage at Ashton House they had been paying £8. Ashton House does not charge Service users for this service provided. CSCI will be able to write to (name blacked out) to confirm this.

It was felt that the Council’s Financial Liaison Officer’s Team would have to be spoken to regarding this matter and to see if they are able to assist. It was felt that an Audit was in need regarding the finances of these service users.

Is investigation complete or are further actions required

Further actions will be needed.

Summary of further action plan

1. Audit to be carried out. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out).

2. (name blacked out) to speak to Welfare Benefits in relation to the ongoing concerns.

3. (name blacked out) to find out how much the fee for Newhaven Care Care Home is. (name blacked out) contacted her team whilst in the meeting – fees are £325.42 .

4. ABE interviews to be set up for all service users.

5. A letter to be sent to (name blacked out) informing that they are in breach of their contract. Contracts section to do this.

6. Learning Disabilities and Contracts Section to have a separate meeting, (name blacked out) to liaise with them.

7. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) regarding the new referral.

8. CSCI to write a letter to (name blacked out) confirming whether service users have to pay the £8 for services provided.

9. A list of service users names will be forwarded to the Contracts Section by CSCI. (name blacked out) to then liaise with (name blacked out) and Job Centre Plus.

Date and time of next meeting

4th November 2005, 10.30am. Meeting will be held at Bebington Town Hall Annexe, Civic Way, Bebington

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:


Categories