Conflict of Interest in relation to Client Finance/Appointeeship and the possibility that social care charges are unlawful

The request was successful.

Dear Salford City Council,

To whom it may concern

1. How many individuals is the local authority acting as an appointee for, please?

2. How many of these individuals (in area or out of area) pays adult social care charges to the council for non-residential services?

3. Which department is responsible for administering appointeeship?

4. Which department is responsible for assessing social care charges?

5. How many officers in either department carry out an overlapping role with regard to appointeeship and care charges?

6. How many times has the appointeeship team responded to a consultation on behalf of individuals or any group of benefits claimants regarding a change in the council’s charging policy, since 2015?

7. How many appeals about care charges has the appointeeship team submitted to the financial assessment team since 2015?

8. How many complaints has the appointeeship team submitted regarding care charges since 2015?

9. How many times has the appointeeship team sought or referred individuals they act for, to independent advice (whether third sector, legal aid or privately funded) about care charges, since 2015?

10. How many times has the appointeeship team questioned the accuracy, fairness or legal validity of individuals’ care charges or the council’s charging policy, since 2015?

11. Does the council treat appointeeship as a Care Act service? If so, does it charge for that as part of the Care Act charging system?

12. How much does it charge, if it makes a charge, per month or per week or per year, please?

13. If appointeeship is not provided for through the Care Act, does the council allow for a DRE deduction from Disability Benefits income, for the charge it makes for appointeeship (assuming a person is otherwise chargeable)?

14. If the council does not operate appointeeships for adult social care clients, does the council permit a full DRE deduction from Disability Benefits income, for any charge levied by any other corporate or private appointee (assuming a person is otherwise chargeable)?

15. In respect of all council clients who are currently in receipt of adult social care services, regarded as liable to pay a charge for their adult social care services, for whom the appointee role is currently undertaken - how is the relevant department holding the appointeeship responsibility proposing to manage the conflict of interest presented by the judgment in the Norfolk CC v SH case in December 2020, given that the decision means that other similar policies are presumptively unlawful? Please answer with a sentence or a paragraph; it is suggested that it is not a proper response to say that no decisions have been made, as yet, because the problem already exists.

Regards
Belinda Schwehr, CEO, CASCAIDr. www.CASCAIDr.org.uk

Wrycraft, James, Salford City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Schwehr,        

 

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request on
21.03.2020, the body of which is as follows:

 

**

1. How many individuals is the local authority acting as an appointee for,
please?

 

2. How many of these individuals (in area or out of area) pays adult
social care charges to the council for non-residential services?

 

3. Which department is responsible for administering appointeeship?

 

4. Which department is responsible for assessing social care charges?

 

5. How many officers in either department carry out an overlapping role
with regard to appointeeship and care charges?

 

6. How many times has the appointeeship team responded to a consultation
on behalf of individuals or any group of benefits claimants regarding a
change in the council’s charging policy, since 2015?

 

7. How many appeals about care charges has the appointeeship team
submitted to the financial assessment team since 2015?

 

8. How many complaints has the appointeeship team submitted regarding care
charges since 2015?

 

9. How many times has the appointeeship team sought or referred
individuals they act for, to independent advice (whether third sector,
legal aid or privately funded) about care charges, since 2015?

 

10. How many times has the appointeeship team questioned the accuracy,
fairness or legal validity of individuals’ care charges or the council’s
charging policy, since 2015?

 

11. Does the council treat appointeeship as a Care Act service? If so,
does it charge for that as part of the Care Act charging system?

 

12. How much does it charge, if it makes a charge, per month or per week
or per year, please?

 

13. If appointeeship is not provided for through the Care Act, does the
council allow for a DRE deduction from Disability Benefits income, for the
charge it makes for appointeeship (assuming a person is otherwise
chargeable)?

 

14. If the council does not operate appointeeships for adult social care
clients, does the council permit a full DRE deduction from Disability
Benefits income, for any charge levied by any other corporate or private
appointee (assuming a person is otherwise chargeable)?

 

15. In respect of all council clients who are currently in receipt of
adult social care services, regarded as liable to pay a charge for their
adult social care services, for whom the appointee role is currently
undertaken - how is the relevant department holding the appointeeship
responsibility proposing to manage the conflict of interest presented by
the judgment in the Norfolk CC v SH case in December 2020, given that the
decision means that other similar policies are presumptively unlawful? 
Please answer with a sentence or a paragraph; it is suggested that it is
not a proper response to say that no decisions have been made, as yet,
because the problem already exists.

**

 

Please see attached response.

 

Many Thanks,

James Wrycraft
Principal Information Governance Officer

Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford M27 5DA

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this communication/message from
[email address] is confidential. It is intended solely for
the addressee(s) Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. As a public body,
Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any
response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the
information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. Please
immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail
Thank you.