Tag: Martin Morton

Response from Cllr Jeff Green on the Anna Klonowski Associates report redactions

Response from Cllr Jeff Green on the Anna Klonowski Associates report redactions

Response from Cllr Jeff Green on Improvement Board issues

                        

Following the Improvement Board meeting held in public last month, exactly a month ago I emailed Graham Burgess (Chief Executive), Cllr Phil Davies (Leader of the Labour Group), Cllr Jeff Green (Leader of the Conservative Group) and Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Leader of the Lib Dem Group) about the progress on the commitments made at that meeting.

I indicated in that email that I would publish replies (unless the author stated otherwise) so that the public know what’s happening.

Nearly two weeks ago I received a reply from Cllr Jeff Green (which is below). It made sense to wait a little longer for replies from the others so that they could all be published together. As a month has gone by and I haven’t received a reply from another of the other three, below Cllr Jeff Green’s reply I include my original email. I haven’t changed the colour used for text in Cllr Green’s email, as Leader of the Conservative Group I think it would come as no surprise to people that he writes in blue!

from: Green, Jeff E. (Councillor)
to: john.brace@gmail.com
date: 6 December 2013 14:47
subject: RE: follow up to question and answer session at Friday’s Improvement Board meeting
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Dear John

Thanks for your email. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

I think my record is pretty clear on this matter: I have always pushed for an un-redacted copy of the AKA report to be published and have been obstructed at every turn.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and the sooner the light is shed on the actions of those responsible, the better.

I trust that sets my position out clearly for you.

Best wishes

Jeff Green signature

Cllr. Jeff Green
Leader of the Conservative Group
Ward Councillor for West Kirby & Thurstaston

Twitter: www.twitter.com/cllrjeffgreen
Phone: 07766725125
You can also find me on Facebook

From: John Brace [mailto:john.brace@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 November 2013 11:15
To: Burgess, Graham
Cc: Davies, Phil L. (Councillor); Green, Jeff E. (Councillor); Gilchrist, Phil N. (Councillor)
Subject: follow up to question and answer session at Friday’s Improvement Board meeting

Dear Graham Burgess, Cllr Phil Davies, Cllr Jeff Green and Cllr Phil Gilchrist,

In order that the public know the progress of the commitments made on Friday’s Improvement Board meeting I am publishing this email and will happily also publish any replies unless you indicate that you do not wish your reply to be put in the public domain.

A brief update on some progress I have made on the appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates Limited report. Appendix B (the Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter dated 29th December 2010) has been helpfully supplied by Paul Cardin.

Appendices C (the first improvement plan) and D (the Care Quality Commission Inspection Report) I discovered at the weekend had already been published by Wirral Council as part of a Cabinet agenda from over three years ago.

Appendix G (the Standards for England decision notices) have already been published too and I am not asking for appendix L (medical information relating to Martin Morton). This just leaves appendices E, F, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P and Q.

With regards to my supplementary question about appendix P (minutes of the DASS Monitoring and Development Sub Group Meeting), as this was the only meeting minutes referred to in the appendices list I made an error. My question should’ve referred to notes in a different appendix, which contained the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005, my apologies for any confusion caused.

I would be interested in receiving an unredacted copy of the notes and accompanying table (unredacted in respect of the three councillors who were there if deleting the redaction of officer names is an insurmountable problem) of the Charging Policy Working Group. The only councillor I am able to ascertain was there so far was Cllr Pat Williams.

With regards to appendix E (charging policy for supported living services) as this was a policy I presume it was agreed by councillors. It therefore can’t be claimed that a policy falls into one of the reasons you gave on Friday for not publishing the appendices. Publishing it would help the public understand the series of events that happened and whether it was an unlawful policy implemented by officers or whether officers acted outside of an agreed policy.

I am sure you (apart from Cllr Gilchrist who couldn’t be there) remember the mood of the public at Friday’s meeting and how although Wirral Council has changed in some ways that convincing the public of that change will be a difficult challenge.

I asked the questions I did on Friday because if the public were informed fully about what actually happened, then knowing what happened and the chain of events that led to it would allow the public to decide for themselves whether the changes made since then would prevent a reoccurence in the future.

Until there is more disclosure of what went happened, despite Wirral Council’s desire to “move on” some members of the public will still want to know and the details of who, what, why, where and when which at the moment are answers that are only filled with speculation.

I hope this sets out my position and I look forward to a more detailed response about the future publication (or the reasons against publication) of the remaining appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associated Limited report and the question about removing the redactions of councillor and officer names (at Head of Service level and above) in the Martin Smith report.

Yours sincerely,
John Brace

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: