Month: November 2013

“Money that the service users have left over is given to ?, for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away”

Money that the service users have left over is given to ?, for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away”

“The money that the service users have left over is given to (name blacked out), for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away.”

                           

Continuing from yesterday’s publication of the appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates report the next Adult Protection Strategy Meeting at pages 336-337 has one of the most chilling lines I’ve ever read in minutes of a meeting which is “The money that the service users have left over is given to (name blacked out), for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away.” This is from August 2005, but it shows a shocking attitude of one of the people present who seems to almost go as far as wishing people with a learning difficulty dead!

The full shocking minutes of the meeting referred to are below.

Metropolitan
Borough of Wirral

Adult Protection Subsequent Strategy Meeting

Name of Victim: Newhaven Care Care Home

Time/Date: 14:30pm, 03rd August 05

Chair: (name blacked out) Service Manager
Introductions: (name blacked out) Inspector, CSCI
(name blacked out) FSU, Bebington
(name blacked out) Minutes, Adult Protection

Apologies: (name blacked out) Team Manager, Contracts Department

Minutes from previous meeting

Agreed

Actions from previous meeting – progress reports

1. (name blacked out) to check whom and if the service users are allocated to and to what team the social workers are from.

(name blacked out) to chase this up.

2. CSCI to investigate financial affairs. An inspection will occur were and the current set up for managing service users finances will be looked at.
A CSCI investigation took place and (name blacked out)’s finances were looked over. There is no evidence of any financial abuse. The resident’s fees are paid into (name blacked out)’s account. (name blacked out) takes his fee and then gives the residents their £18.50. (name blacked out)’s in and out balance are all up to date.
The new accounts have been opened for the residents they will receive the interest on there accounts. CSCI feel this is good practice on the service users behalf.
The money that the service users have left over is given to (name blacked out), for the service users to have a nice grave when they pass away.

3. It was felt to prevent any suspicions being raised by (name blacked out), Halifax will open the accounts. The accounts will be carefully monitored.

Accounts have now been open; Halifax will monitor and inform Adult Protection if an incident occurs.

4. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) and inform of new meeting and request that (name blacked out) chairs the meeting as (name blacked out) is on leave.

(name blacked out) was unable to chair the meeting; therefore (name blacked out) chaired the meeting in place of (name blacked out).

Update:

Police – Satisfied that this is not criminal and that (name blacked out) has done this for the right reasons not the wrong reason.

Social Services – Better practises need to be put in place in managing finances for people with learning difficulties.

Is investigation complete or are further actions required

Further actions will be needed.

Summary of further action plan

1. (name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) and FLO’s team in relation to putting practise in place.

2. (name blacked out) to develop the practise and then this will be circulated to all care homes who will be expected to comply.

Date and time of next meeting

No further action for Adult Protection, case closed.

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

Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices: The ones Wirral Council never wanted the public to know!

Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices: The ones Wirral Council never wanted the public to know!

Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices: The ones Wirral Council never wanted the public to know!

                          

Here is a link to the Anna Klonowski Associates report appendices.

Sadly in parts it’s heavily redacted (but isn’t that to be expected?). It’s 401 pages long and according to the Graham Burgess’ answer to me at the last Improvement Board meeting is not something Wirral Council wanted in the public domain. Oh well now it is! It’ll be interesting to see if it leads to any FOI requests for the unredacted versions of these documents.

The level of redactions of people’s names in it is a little over the top, as the redaction of names includes documents that are already in the public domain. I will be making further blog posts about the detail contained within.

I’m sure once this blog post in published Wirral Council will be conducting an inquiry as to how this got leaked to me. Here is an excerpt below from page 333 & 334.

Adult Protection Initial Strategy Meeting

Name: Newhaven Care
Time/Date: 10:00am, 14th July 05
Chair: (name is blacked out) – Adult Protection Co-ordinator

Introductions: (name is blacked out) – FSU, Bebington
(name is blacked out) – CSCI Inspector
(name is blacked out) – Retail Fraud, Halifax Bank
(name is blacked out) – Team Manager, Contract Dept.
(name is blacked out) – Minutes, Adult Protection

Apologies: None

Concerns relating to the victim:

On 14th June 05 (name is blacked out), owner of Newhaven Care visited the Wallasey branch of Halifax to open up 9 Liquid Gold accounts. These are savings accounts. All signatures were in the same handwriting. This raised concerns with the counter staff who forwarded her concerns to the Halifax Retail fraud at Head Office, Halifax.

When applying for this account (name is blacked out) produced a letter from a GP confirming that all 9 residents lived at Newhaven Care. On the letter the year had been changed from 2004 to 2005. The accounts have not yet been processed are so are not in operation.

Concerns were also raised that these residents already have active bank accounts with Barclays Bank.

Emergency Actions taken prior to the strategy meeting:

All 9 applications have been put on hold.

(name is blacked out) is not aware of this and has not been informed there is a meeting regarding these issues.

Concerns raised by other agencies:

CSCI – when investigated Newhaven Care there no concerns about finances. CSCI will do a further investigation and put down that finances will need to be looked at in more detail.

Police – the status of the accounts for both homes was questioned. Have any transactions occurred and were there any deposits of money? The Halifax was able to report that no deposits of money had occurred the accounts were still at the application stage.

Halifax – (name blacked out) has previously opened these types of accounts for other service users at his other home. When applying for these accounts again in June (name blacked out) asked for the same member of staff who dealt with the accounts in February.

. It was also felt that these services users have no capacity around there finances and would not understand what the account was or for. If the service users were going to open an account they would need an advocate there or a social worker to be present, as these are young adults with severe learning difficulties. There were also concerns as to why all 9 service users decided that they all wanted to open the same account.

Identified risks. Is the victim protected?

Concerns have been raised in relation to the possible financial abuse of service users. As the accounts are not open yet it is felt the risk has been minimised.

Action Plan

(name blacked out) to check who and if the service users are allocated to and what team the social workers are from.

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

It was felt to prevent any suspicions being raised by (name blacked out) Halifax will open the accounts. They will be carefully monitored.

(name blacked out) to liaise with (name blacked out) and inform of new meeting and request that (name blacked out) chairs the meeting as (name blacked out) is on leave.

Date and time of next strategy meeting

Friday 5th August ’05, 09:30am, Bebington Town Hall Annex, 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:

Cross party support for new legislation on filming Council meetings (in England)

Cross party support for new legislation on filming Council meetings (in England)

Cross party support for new legislation on filming Council meetings (in England)

                               

The Local Audit and Accountability Bill progresses through the House of Commons. The Local Audit and Accountability Bill Committee on Thursday 21st November 2013 discussed the new clause to be added to the bill about filming of local Council meetings. New clause 4 is a new clause added to the bill about filming. As there’s quite a bit of interest, both on the Wirral and further afield about this issue, I’m including below (from Parliament’s website) what was said on this issue.

Once the Local Audit and Accountability Bill becomes law, the provisions on filming in it will require a further statutory instrument to be agreed before they become a legal requirement on local Councils (which hopefully will also repeal some of the legislation that’s been used to prevent filming too).

Below is the text of what was said in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill Committee on the 21st November. The text below contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v1.0.

The Chair:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 134.

Government new clause 4—Access to local government meetings and documents.

Government amendment 135.

Brandon Lewis:

The amendments give greater rights to the public to access or report on local government meetings and documents. Before I talk about the details, I want to thank the hon. Member for Corby and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for supporting the instructions to the Committee to allow us to widen the scope of the Bill in order to debate the amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the amendments. I appreciate our conversations outside the Committee.

New clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the public’s access to the meetings and documents of local government bodies. Transparency and openness can be achieved only when people, including citizens and professional journalists, have adequate rights to attend their local government bodies’ meetings. Public meetings of local government bodies should be fully accessible to those who cannot attend in person, so that the public can hold those bodies to account.

We are introducing this measure because openness is an issue that fundamentally affects the lives of communities. We have already introduced greater transparency and openness to the meetings of the council’s executive, its committees and sub-committees through the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

Although the regulations give local people more rights to attend meetings of the council’s executive and to access information relating to decisions made in those meetings, the same rights do not extend to the meetings of full council, its committees, sub-committees and joint committees, parish and town councils, and other local government bodies. On top of this, in recent months, there have been some disgraceful incidents when members of the public have been ejected from meetings simply for trying to film them.

For example, a council we have all talked about a great deal in the past couple of weeks, Tower Hamlets, barred a 71-year-old resident from filming owing to the risk of

“reputation damage to the authority”.

Keighley town council blocked residents from filming, because it would have been a

“breach of standing orders”.

Stamford town council banned journalists from tweeting at meetings owing to the risk of their

“not accurately portraying a debate.”

If we were all banned from tweeting across the Chamber, life would be somewhat less interesting, as we saw yesterday.

When I was a council leader in 2005, I introduced the webcasting of all meetings, and we noticed how the community can really benefit. On a cold winter’s night, if a member of the public is interested in a particular part of what can be a very long council meeting and they do not necessarily know which issues will take longest, instead of having to come along and sit through one hour to five hours of a meeting for an issue that could be at the back end of it, the member of the public can sit at home and watch it at their leisure. Also, in our system, they can send questions and messages if they wish. It opens up democracy to the public in a more accessible way in the modern world.

We now live in a digital world where the use of modern communication methods, such as filming, tweeting and blogging are widely embraced. There is no reason why such communication methods should not be welcomed, particularly for enhancing the openness of local government bodies.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab):

Will the Minister outline whether any codes of practice should be adopted? The measure could be used in an unhelpful way. I support the notion of people being allowed to record and film in council meetings. Indeed, when I was leader of Derby city council, I set up the webcasting of our council meetings. It is important to have greater access, but will we have a code of practice to prevent abuse taking place?

Brandon Lewis:

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is good that, as we saw on Second Reading, there is agreement throughout the House on the importance of transparency and how it can be beneficial. It is fair to say that people should not be able to disrupt meetings. At the same time, however, we must get the balance right, as the regulations will, and we shall talk to the LGA about that. We must make sure that an authority does not use disruption as an excuse to stop people filming a meeting in a non-disruptive sense.

I was shown an example on YouTube. A council somehow managed to “lose” the recording of a council meeting that was webcast on the internet. The council had the embarrassing situation that the chairman of a panel did not like what was going on and decided to leave. However, he had not actually ended the meeting, so somebody else took the chair and carried on. Amazingly, that disappeared from the webcast, but somebody videoed the meeting on their own camera, and they put it on YouTube. Nothing particularly exciting was going on, but the point is that if members of the public are allowed to film—I am not sure anybody knew this person was filming at the time—we can make sure that transparency survives.

I do take the hon. Gentleman’s points on board. That is why we will liaise with partners to make sure that the regulations are correct. We want to make sure that meetings are not disrupted, but, equally, that disruption cannot be used as an excuse to block fair and proper transparency. It is the inconsistent and unjustifiable excuses that councils occasionally use to refuse public access that we want the clause to address. Our intention is to make regulations that require local government bodies, including their committees, sub-committees and joint committees, to allow people to film, photograph, tweet and blog at their public meetings.

The regulations may also specify that any persons attending a meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings should inform the relevant body of their intention before filming or photographing—the important word there is “inform”. They may also specify that government bodies may reasonably ask for the filming or photographing to be done in such a way that they are not disruptive to the good order and conduct of the meeting.

Allowing local people to attend and report on meetings of local government bodies will help them to understand the local decision-making process and empower them to be involved in making decisions that affect our lives.

Amendment 130 requires the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure when amending primary legislation. That will give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the regulations before approving them through resolution. Where they amend secondary legislation, the negative procedure will be used.

Amendment 134 specifies that the power to make regulations will come into force two months after the Bill has been passed, as is the usual practice. As I said, the Government intend to work with the LGA and the National Association of Local Councils to cover the detail of the regulations.

Amendment 135 simply updates the Bill’s long title to reflect the inclusion of new clause 4.

Andy Sawford:

We support the clause. We were pleased to support the Government’s extending the scope of the Bill and introducing these provisions.

I read the 1988 debate about televising the House of Commons, and I noted Members’ sincerely held concerns that it could fundamentally change the character of the House of Commons and the way in which debates took place, and concerns that those changes to the way our Parliament functioned could harm our democracy. What Member of the House of Commons today would argue against televising the House of Commons?

Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con):

There are some. [Laughter.]

Andy Sawford:

One Member says there may be some, but I think there would be near-unanimity in the House of Commons that filming is the right thing for our democracy and that it is right for the public to see what we get up to. Even if we do not always give the best account of ourselves in the public’s eye, they can at least see the debates that take place, including in Select Committees and other forums around Parliament.

I have a confession to make, although I hope it will not come as a surprise to this particular group of hon. Members, with their experience of local government—many of them have been local councillors. I have availed myself of the webcasting my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North and the Minister introduced in their local authorities. During my research as a member of the Local Government Information Unit I did that to look at debates in not only my own local authority, but other local authorities around the country. Although I recognise that the viewership of local council webcasts is often quite small, the fact that they are there and that the public can see what is happening in their local council chamber is a source of strength for our system of local democracy and local government around the country. We should note, however, as I did when I was reading the 1988 debate, that there was some difference of view between longer-serving Members of the House of Commons at that time and a newer generation of Members who had more recently entered Parliament. The same could be said of councils around the country, and I note that two of the smaller parish councils were highlighted by the Minister as recent examples of where there had been a problem. We are aware that diversity is increasing in local government, and we would all hope to encourage that, but we are also aware that the generation that is leading the world of blogging and the use of online media is not as well represented in local government as those for whom that new world may be something of a challenge to their way of operating in the local council chamber.

In communicating that to local authorities around the country—I am sure that the Minister will agree with this sentiment—I hope that we would not, in any way, try to beat local councils over the head for not having already embraced the change, but rather that we would communicate with them persuasively about why this is a good thing in their local chambers, and why they should move quickly to ensure that they fully comply with the clause as it is introduced.

I want to add something to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made, and I thought the Minister’s response was welcome. We all want to ensure that the risk of disruption is minimised. For example, concerns have been put to me that a member of the public, because of their view about one particular member of the authority, could focus all their filming on that member even though the member may not be actively speaking or participating in the debate at a given time. That, in itself, may be something that an elected member of a local council might just have to grin and bear, but there is a point about fair and appropriate conduct by members of the public when they are in the council chamber.

However, the Minister struck the right tone, as I am sure my hon. Friends would agree, in indicating that the bar would be high on disruption, and that it should not be used as an excuse by a local authority not to open up their proceedings properly. With that welcome assurance from the Minister, and in the knowledge that he will consult on and develop guidance in order to implement the provision, I welcome the clause, which enjoys the Opposition’s support.

Brandon Lewis:

I knew there would come a point in the Committee when I and the hon. Member for Derby North agreed wholeheartedly. It had to happen. We got there eventually, as I shall no doubt tweet later today.

On a more serious note, there is just one other point to make. I agree with everything that has been said, and I appreciate the support. It is important that local government and the public see that there is cross-party support for opening things up and ensuring that there is transparency, which, importantly, local government should embrace. The hon. Member for Corby is right about how we put the message across to local government. What I say to local government and put on the record is that this is not only about ensuring that there is transparency, so that the public can see what is going on and how councils spend money. As important as that is, local government should see this as a chance for great councillors around the country to show the good work that they are doing and how hard they work for their communities. Therefore, it is a positive step for them.

Amendment 130 agreed to.

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

A quick guide to some legal terms used in the last two posts

A quick guide to some legal terms used in the last two posts

A quick guide to some legal terms used in the last two posts

                          

The last two posts on this blog part 1 can be found here and part 2 here contained some legal terminology that it’s perhaps best to explain here.

possession order A possession order is a court order directing that possession of a property (or piece of land) is given to the owner (usually the claimant).

claimant In a civil case the claimant is the person (or organisation) suing the other party (or parties) who are referred to as the defendants.

defendant In a civil case the defendant is the person/s (or organisation/s) being sued.

defence If a defendant refutes some (or all of the allegations) made by the claimant they can submit a defence. The Civil Procedure Rules (the rules a court and parties to a case follow) has various provisions that relate to defences here.

overriding principles The Civil Procedure Rules contain some “overriding principles”. This is the old way it used to be referred to and in the new version of the Civil Procedure Rules it’s referred to as “overriding objective”. These makes sure the case is dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. For example both parties have to be on an equal footing and the case has to be dealt with by the court that’s proportionate to things like the amount of money involved, the importance of the case, the complexity of the issue, the financial position of each party, ensuring its dealt with fairly and allotting it an appropriate share of the court’s resources. These are set out in detail in part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

statement of truth Many documents filed with the court (and other parties) during the case have to also contain a statement of truth, the list of documents this applies to is set out in part 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There’s a form for the statement of truth which is ‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.’ for witness statements and ‘[I believe][the (claimant or as may be) believes] that the facts stated in this [name document being verified] are true.’ for other documents. Statements of truth also have to be signed, in the case of a witness statement by the witness making the statement. More detail on statements of truth can be found in practice direction 22.

litigants in person This refers to parties to a case (whether the claimant or defendant) who don’t have legal representation. However they do have “rights of audience”, that is the right to address the court in person.

standard disclosure This relates to part 31.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules detailing which documents have to be disclosed by the parties to a case.

allocation questionnaire Prior to a final hearing, parties used to each fill out a questionnaire answering questions such as how long they expected they needed, whether they were going to rely on expert witnesses, which track the case should be on, whether the pre-action protocols were complied with etc. Allocation questionnaires were abolished as part of legal reforms in April 2013 and replaced with directions questionnaires as well a change in that a court officer now proposes which track the case should be on.

track, small claims, fast track, multi track Each case is allocated to a track. The small claims track deals with things like personal injury claims, tenants seeking an order on their landlords to carry out minor repairs and claims less than £1000 (for example a business suing for an unpaid invoice). The fast track is for larger claims up to the value of £25,000 and can involve expert witnesses. The multi-track is for claims that don’t normally get dealt with as small claims or on the fast track.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

                                   

Continues from EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 1.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he would include with the witness statements standard disclosure. Wirral Council asked if standard disclosure meant by list with a copy attached? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked them to take care with hidden documents.

Cllr Ian Lewis made a point about the missing correspondence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said it should still be in the list. Wirral Council said that they should all have a copy.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he wanted to set down how long the final hearing would be, with four witness statements, he suggested three hours. Wirral Council agreed with three hours.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth started dictating the text of his order, then changed his mind and decided to do it the other way round instead. He said that unless the defendants filed and served a defence, then their existing defence would be struck out and judgement entered for the Claimant (Wirral Council).

Wirral Council sad that they should be entitled to rely on the existing defence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said there would be no amended defence unless the defendants filed and served on the Claimant an amended defence by 4pm in twenty-one days? Cllr Ian Lewis agreed with “Yes, Sir.”

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said if the amended defence was not filed and served by the 12th December then the case would proceed on the basis of the defence already filed and served. For point two in the court order he wanted to move to standard disclosure. He wanted standard disclosure by list with documents attached that were referred to therein filed and served by 4pm on the 12th December.

For point three of his court order he wanted mutual exchange of witness statements by 4pm on a specific date, he pointed out at this point it would have to be well after the 12th December and he’d have to take into account the Christmas period and he suggested the 9th January 2014?

Wirral Council urged the Court to to tighten the timescales a little as the Claimant (Wirral Council) felt it was a relatively straight forward matter that wouldn’t wouldn’t take a great deal of time and could be relatively quick. Wirral Council said regarding the importance of the case it should be dealt with procedurally could the timescales be tightened up?

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked Wirral Council what they proposed? Wirral Council answered that they would like the timescales brought forward by a week, with a hearing soon after in the New Year. Cllr Ian Lewis said that to be practical, they wished to stick to the timescale for the first two dates.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated the timescales of 12th December 2013 and 9th January 2014 with an early listing thereafter. He asked then about the bundle?

Wirral Council said as it was their claim that they would produce a paginated and indexed bundle.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated and stated that the Claimant would prepare a paginated and indexed bundle in anticipation of the trial of this matter to be filed at court at least seven days before the trial date. He explained to the litigants-in-person that it was a principle that he didn’t want the judge hearing the case to be taken by surprise. A copy bundle would be sent to the defendants and everybody would be served a bundle with numbered pages, served and filed at the court at least seven days before the trial date.

Wirral Council asked about the allocation? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked if it was a part 8 claim that had been issued? Wirral Council said they were happy with it being dealt with as a part 8 claim. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that would mean it was given an immediate hearing date. He asked what they were looking for?

Wirral Council said in their opinion it was a fast track matter and said they don’t want to proceed with an allocation questionnaire as it would delay with the matter so that could be dispensed with as well.

Cllr Ian Lewis said he had no idea what an allocation questionnaire was. District Judge Grosscurth explained that the options were small claims, multi track or fast track but this was “definitely fast track” as it was not a small claim matter so it would be allocated to the fast track. He said they would be dispensing with the directions questionnaire.

Wirral Council said they would be amalgamated. District Judge Grosscurth said it had been changed in April. Now there was a directions questionnaire and a listing questionnaire and that it would be listed for a final hearing at the next available date after the week to deal with the statements, which was the 16th January 2014. He asked what the estimated length of the final hearing would be?

Wirral Council answered three hours. District Judge Grosscurth said he would change that, as whoever was hearing it on the day needed knowledge of the case. He suggested half an hour of reading time and a two and a half hours for the hearing to split it up.

District Judge Grosscurth asked if there was anything else? Wirral Council said that they “don’t think so” but asked about costs? District Judge Grosscurth said that costs would be sorted out at the end of the day and that there are cost implications which the parties needed to be aware of. He suggested the defendants seek advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau. He made part six of his order about costs in the case and said that the parties knew what they had got to do. Cllr Ian Lewis thanked him, Wirral Council thanked him.

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