The Director of Adult Social Services provided to the Committee his professional comments and views on the policies and practices with regard to Supported Living which were in place in Wirral during the period 1997 – 2003. His report was intended to complement both that of the Chief Internal Auditor ‘Adult Social Services – Charging Policy – Service Users Residing at “In-House” Supported Living Units During the Period 1997 to 2003’ (see minute 42 ante) and his report elsewhere on the agenda dealing with the wider matters raised in the PIDA (see minute 44 post).

He commented that in considering the 1997 Charging Policy, the context of the time needed to be understood. To enable people to stay in their own homes, the concept of ‘supported living’ was being developed and, as Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide (CRAG) could not apply, it being limited to residential placement, councils faced a conundrum of how and how much to charge. Without any clear national guidance a plethora of different charging arrangements arose throughout the country. In May 2000, the Audit Commission produced an extensive document ‘Charging with Care’ which considered the range of different charging arrangements and how ‘reasonableness’ should be interpreted. It led in turn, to the first comprehensive guidance covering all non residential charges – Fair Charging, issued in November 2001.

The Director indicated that the policy adopted in Wirral in 1997 would have been written to address the particular position of people moving from a residential home, Esher House, into their own tenancies. Although it was inflexible and did not take as full an account of all people’s needs as would have been desirable it was quite clear that it was not the intention of the Council at that time to disadvantage those individuals. Rather, the Council was seeking to make an improvement in their lives and enable them to have greater independence than would have been the case had they remained in residential accommodation. He expressed the view that he did not consider, again within the context of the time, that the policy could have been regarded as being so “unreasonable” as to question its legality.

Between 1999 and 2002, the Department had been put into Special Measures and clearly, matters of internal administration and governance lay at the heart of the problems which led to that designation. For whatever reason, the policy adopted by the Council in 1997 was not applied consistently to subsequent Supported Living places that were being established. It was possible to surmise that this may have arisen from confusion at the time of Special Measures; or it may have arisen from a perception that the needs of service users in other settings were very different and that the 1997 policy was inappropriate; or, quite likely, a combination of both. The former residents of Esher House had high levels of need which required 24 hours support and the cost of it would have exceeded the contributions provided. Other service users moving into other supported living settings would have had varying levels of need and officers, at that time should have placed before members the anomalies that were arising and the need to provide for a more flexible and appropriate policy.

He reported that in the lead up to and following the issue of Fair Charging guidance in 2001, there were further missed opportunities to lay before members the position with regard to charging and to place it within the context of Fair Charging, which was due to become operative by no later than April 2003. A further complexity at the time would have been the development of the “Supporting People” programme which was launched on 1 April 2003, to provide housing related support to help vulnerable people to live more independently and maintain their tenancies. Although there were numerous reports about Fair Charging and working parties operating, these failed to provide sufficient clarity for members to make appropriate decisions. During the period 2000-2003, there was evidence that concerns about anomalies and a failure to collect income through not applying charges to some service users were raised within the department, but these did not lead to timely action.

The Director commented also that the report to the special meeting held on 23 September 2009 (minute 23 refers) contained reference to the position at Balls Road. There had been confusion about this and Internal Audit had made clear that the ‘special charging policy’ was not applied here. However, investigations into the charges that had been made for rent and service charges had shown apparent anomalies that needed to be resolved. The detail was complex and the Director proposed to write to members once he was satisfied that the history of the matter had been satisfactorily unravelled. He confirmed that if any action was required he would report appropriately to the Cabinet.

Resolved – That consideration of this matter be deferred until such time as an updated internal audit report is presented to the Committee, to take into consideration the views of Mr Morton in relation to the audit investigation.