Tag: Anna Klonowski Associates

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

Black boxes begone! Notes from the Charging Policy Working Group (22nd August 2005) Appendix 9 from the AKA report

 

At the last Council meeting last month, Cllr Pat Williams gave a speech (reported in full on this blog) in which she stated “There is also a lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers and councillors during the period which led to the involvement of the Improvement Board.”

How true that is, Cllr Pat Williams! Appendix 9 to the Anna Klonowski Associates report was the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005. It was heavily redacted with a black marker pen. This was the document I asked Graham Burgess to release without redactions at the public session of the Improvement Board back in November. He hasn’t got back to me on that point so here it is below. I agree with Cllr Pat Williams there has been a lack of accountability, hopefully this will go some way to address it!

Charging Policy Consultation
Notes of a meeting held on 22nd August 2005
Westminster House, Birkenhead

Present

Older people’s representative
Service user/carer representative x 2
A representative of Wirral MIND gave apologies
Advocacy Services Representative
Councillor Pat Williams (Lib Dem)
Councillor Denise Roberts (Labour)
Councillor Les Thomas (Con)
Mike Fowler (Assistant Director Finance & Support Services)
Breda Dutton (Business & performance Manager)
Hilary Grant (Client Financial Services Manager)

Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to consult with party spokespersons and a number of representatives of users and carers on Wirral’s charging policy for social care services delivered to people in their own homes. It is intended that the outcome of this and other consultations will be presented to the Health and Social Care Select Committee prior to recommending to Cabinet any revisions to the Charging Policy as directed by Cabinet in March 2005.

Process
Mike Fowler (MF) gave a presentation (attached) which outlined the type of services the Council charges for and how they are calculated. The presentation went on to explain why the Council believed changes to the policy were necessary and what options might be considered.

The Group asked questions during the presentation and these are recorded in the attached table. The Group did not intend to make any specific recommendations to Council but agreed to review these notes and make subsequent representations as were considered appropriate.

It was recognised that not all client groups were adequately represented and MF gave assurance that there would be other processes to ensure as many people as possible were consulted prior to Cabinet making a decision on future charges.

Notes of User/Carer Consultation

Presentation Discussion and Comment
1. What Services are charged for ?
MF explained the three types of charges. These are (a) for people who live in residential or nursing homes, (b) for people who are helped to live at home, and (c) for meals-on-wheels. Noted
The remit of this consultation is (b) and (c). Charges for residential and nursing care are set by Government and cannot be influenced locally. Noted
MF explained charges for people who are helped to live at home are based on Government guidance ‘Fairer Charging’ which assesses people’s ability to pay (based on their income, benefits and savings) It was noted that Councils do not have to charge, but if they do they must adhere to the principles within this Guidance.
People who receive meals delivered to their homes were charged £1.60 per meal. No account is taken of their ability to pay. In response to a question raised by Councillors, MF confirmed this price had not been changed since December 2000, and if inflation had been applied each year the charge would now be £1.81.
2. How are charges worked out?
MF went through the steps to calculate charges for people supported with a community care package and identified the three bases of charges. These were:- Noted
(a) Charges against disposable income.This is currently 27%. Disposable Income is the amount above the minimum the Government believes is necessary to live on (ie Income Support levels). MF confirmed that (i) people whose only source of income was Income Support were not charged, (ii) carers income was not taken into account, and (iii) Mobility Allowance was not included as income.
(b) Charges against benefits.Currently £5.27 per week for people who receive Disability Allowance (DLA), or £7.27 for higher DLA The group asked for information on the current levels of this Allowance. HG responded £40.55 per week for Medium DLA, and £60.60 per week for higher DLA. Over 80% of claimants receive the Medium level.
(c) charges against savings.Currently £1 per week for every £250 above £12,500. People with more than £20,500 are assessed to pay the full cost of their care MF clarified the £1 was the assumed income from savings to be added to Disposable income in 2(a) above. The Group asked who set these levels and MF responded they are in the guidance but Council’s were free to set higher figures (not lower).
3. Why does the Council think the policy should be reviewed?
MF summarised the ‘Fairer Charging policy, the main principles are:-(a) Charges should take account of people’s ability to pay

(b) Charges should be equally applied across all client groups

 It was acknowledged the current policy does this in accordance with the Fairer Charging Guidance.MF reported there were some groups, and service types, not being charged in the same way. These were (1) Adults with Learning Disability who attend Day Centres, and (2) Adult living in Supported Living services – previously classed as residential care.The Group felt this was unfair, and that everyone should be assessed in the same way, although it was noted the group most affected were not represented at this event.
MF reported the existing policy had not been changed for 5 years Noted
The Council agreed budget savings in 2005-06 of £150,000 from Fairer Charges and £50,000 from Meals Noted
4. Options
MF summarised the options that could be considered by the Council. These are:-(a) Charge more for people with over £20,500 savings (ie raising the full price)

(b) Charge more against disposable income

(c) Charge more against Disability related Benefits

(d) Increase the price of Meals on Wheels

(e) Include people who only receive Day Care or Supported Living Services in the charging policy

 There was concern that people just over the limit would have their savings reduced rapidly. MF confirmed the Council ‘could’ raise the threshold for being assessed to pay the full price.The Council could either change the %-Take figure or increase the minimum level before charges start to apply (eg Income Support + £10)

The Council could change the charge against Disability benefits. Few Councils take all the Benefit in charges, many take between £10 and £15 per week.

The Council can charge up to the full price for meals (currently £2.42)

Most Councils operate the same Fairer Charging policy for these type of services
5. Exploring each option in turn ->
(a) Charge people with over £20,500 more.
The current policy is to charge £6.14 per hour. The actual cost to the Council is between £9 and £11. If the Council raised its charge to £7.14 an additional £75,000 would be raised.		 The Group asked how many people this would affect, MF reported approximately 500 people (there are actually 540 people paying on average £27 per week, which raises £750,000 pa)The Group felt it would be fair to charge people more who were more able to pay because they had more assets, but were concerned people who were just over the threshold would quickly drop below it. There was also concern people would divest themselves of their savings purposefully to avoid paying charges.

MF explained there were few people who were ‘just over’. Most people paying the full price had elected not to reveal the level of their savings and had ‘chosen’ to pay full cost.

The group would like to ask the Council to consider raising the £20,500 threshold to protect those who were ‘just over’ the limit. On this basis, people with more substantial savings would be more likely to accept higher charges; bearing in mind the subsidy that would still remain.
(b)Charge more against disposable incomeThe current policy is to charge 27% of disposable income. MF explained that for every ‘percentage point’ above this the Council would raise an additional £10,000 (eg if the charge was 30%, £30,000 would be generated. MF confirmed there would be 1,200 service users affected by varying the %-Take figure.Many other Authorities charge between 30% and 35%.
(c) Charge more against Disability related BenefitsPeople who get DLA/AA are charged £5.27 per week at the lower level or £7.27 at the higher.

Raising the charges by £1 per week would generate an additional £94,000 per year.

 The Group felt it fair that people should use these benefits to pay for their care as this was the purpose of the benefit.
(d) Increase the price of Meals on WheelsThe current price per meal is £1.60. The average in the North West is £1.85. The price had not changed in 5 years. Raising it to £1.85 would raise an additional £30,000. The Group asked what the actual price of each meal was. MF responded £2.42 taking into account the cost of the meal, regeneration, and transport.The Group still felt at £1.85 it was good value for a two course meal
(e) Charge people in Supported LivingMany people are not charged for Supported Living
Services. Applying the Fairer Charging Policy would raise £40,000 per year		 The Group felt people receiving these services should be assessed to pay charges in the same way as other service users. MF reported up to 80 people would be affected.The other group not currently charged is Adults with Learning Disability who only receive day care. Up to 100 users may be affected and MF reported potential collection difficulties.
MF asked the Group to comment on the current method of payment.Users currently receive a statement against which they can make regular payments using a swipe card The group felt the statements were a good idea but felt regular monthly invoices would be an improvementThe group also felt more use of standing orders and direct debits would aid collection (this needs to be offered as a choice)

The Group asked MF to consider ‘rewards’ for opting for Direct Debits similar to those offered by utility Companies
Summary of messages from the Group to CommitteeMF asked the Group what comments they would wish to make to the next Committee
  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Summary

The meeting ended with the following bullet points to be included in a report to Committees in November 2005

  • ‘Fairness’ was considered to be the key consideration.
  • Benefits that were paid for people with disability should be used to pay charges.
  • Avoid putting people into poverty by charging against low incomes.
  • People with higher income and savings should be assessed to pay more.
  • £1.85 is good value for a hot two course meal delivered to your own home
  • The savings threshold should be increased to avoid people fluctuating between full cost and assessed charge when they have around £20,500.
  • All client groups and service types should be charged in the same way.

Next Stage

MF reported an intent to report the outcome of consultation to the Health and Social Care Select Committee in October and Cabinet in November. However the fact that representatives of Learning Disability services could not attend it was decided to delay the report for one month. This
would also give an opportunity to invite further comments from older people themselves by a postal questionnaire.

Recommendations

Members of the Group are asked to confirm this record as a true reflection of the discussion that took place on the 22nd August and make any further representations they feel appropriate.

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

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The next five minutes (a transcript)

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The next five minutes (a transcript)

Improvement Board (15th November 2013) The next five minutes (a transcript)

                                   

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

A previous post on this blog deals with the first five minutes of the Improvement Board meeting. Since then over roughly a week since the video of the Improvement Board meeting was uploaded to Youtube, the first part of the meeting has been viewed nearly two hundred times at the time of writing! As there was such interest in it, I thought I’d continue with a transcript of the meeting, carrying on where I left off which was five minutes and twenty-four seconds in.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): We’re going to move on in terms of making sure we get through the questions. John Brace, are you present, yeah?

John Brace: As there are quite a lot of questions and they’re in here already, I’m quite happy with you reading them out if that would be speeding things up a bit.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): I think that’s really helpful of you and thank you for submitting it in advance, because people have the script in front of them and because it’s long, I won’t actually read it out as we did in one of the other sessions if that’s alright, but we will let you come back when we’ve given the answer, unlike the other sessions, in terms of if there are supplementary questions or points that you feel we didn’t cover from your email, ok? Thank you. Graham do you want to go?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Just in response to the first question which relates to a whole series of appendices to the AKA report, our view is that err all the appendices actually contain very sensitive personal information and to release those appendices would be in breach of data protection and also the duty we have to individuals who gave us information in confidence, or in relation to their own personal medical or financial circumstances. Therefore it’s our view that it would be inappropriate to release those documents as they contain a whole host of sensitive information. Clearly these matters can be tested, if you wish to test our view, via FOIs and the Information Commissioner, but so far our position has been and has not been challenged in respect of those appendices. It’s our view as you can see from some of them anyway, clearly showing they do contain very sensitive personal information.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): I think that was recognised within the question, certainly in terms of one of the appendices, thank you.

Cllr Jeff Green (Leader, Conservative Group): Yeah, can I just check when the Chief Executive said ‘we decided’ who the we were?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Well it’s the Council, I clearly represent the Council.

John Brace: Sorry, as I’m entitled to a supplementary on that. In relation to that list, I know that there were councillors present at that one and that was used as a justification that councillors had signed off on the special charging policy, so if you released it with the other names blacked out, wouldn’t that mean people could have at least a bit of accountability as to who the people were who agreed to that?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Can I also say Chair that with your agreement it would be the intention of the Council to print all these questions, place all these questions on our website and all the answers to them as well so it can be available for people who couldn’t make it at this meeting so they can see what we’re saying.

In respect of that, obviously this is a question that only came in at five o’clock last night which was reasonable and obviously your supplementary has just been asked now so I’d need to probably go away and take advice on that point and we’ll give you the answer both to you John personally and put the answer on the website for everybody to see and certainly Joyce and the Improvement Board will take that into account when they write the final report.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): So thank you, for that particular question, it’s really helpful. Do you want to keep on going in terms of the series of questions because we’ve got them in front of us?

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): The next question I think refers to the Martin Smith report and again our position is the Martin Smith report was redacted as it contained personal information and the Council has a legal obligation with regards to public disclosure of that information to the individuals mentioned in that report.

The Council’s responsibility extends not only to the public, but to any person or body to which the information relates, the Council considers every case on its merits and maintains its position that disclosure is not appropriate in these circumstances. Once again there are ways of challenging the Council, via the Information Commissioner another way if you think the Council is being unreasonable and the Council has and will always respond to the Information Commissioner’s ruling.

I would say however that perhaps the most important part of that report particularly is the recommendations around our whistle blowing, grievances and bullying policies, all of which have been progressed in line with that report and all of which is referred in response to critical incidents report that’s also considered by the Audit Committee last night.

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): Thank you, is there anything further as you’re present that you want to ask? Move onto the councillors point which is in the next question.

Graham Burgess: Thank you, I’ll just stay standing up, shall I?

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): Yeah, I think you should, you could keep your jacket off.

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Again it’s a similar point that the Council does have responsibilities to the individuals named in these reports and this must be considered in relation to disclosure and redaction. Full disclosure of the Martin Smith report would in the Council’s opinion contravene its legal obligations under the Data Protection Act, with regards to upper management’s control of information in its possession.

Once again there are ways of challenging the Council independently if people have a different view and I would encourage people if they don’t agree with the Council’s position to challenge us and we will state our case to the Information Commissioner or any other relevant body. We believe as well as obligations to the public as a whole, we have obligations to individual members of staff, public, service users to protect their interests and that’s why we’re acting in this way.

If however, people think we’re wrong, then it’s worth challenging our position and we welcome people challenging our position. Thank you.

Member of public heckling: You’re wrong, you welcome challenges, you’re wrong. You’re far from being open and transparent and that’s ridiculous. I apologise to you all for that.

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Can I just say?

Joyce Redfearn (Chair, Improvement Board): That’s your view, so I, what we will do is allow further questions and comments at the end and I understand that was a heartfelt, but we’ll go through the series if that’s ok with you.

Member of public who previously heckled: Apologies about the time you take on this decision.

Graham Burgess (Chief Executive, Wirral Council): Can I just say clearly if people think we are wrong, that’s perfectly right to challenge us and there are ways of processing those and it can be challenged independently and we welcome those challenges and if we are wrong of course we will publish the documents.

12:04

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

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

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:

“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: