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

The request was successful.

Dear Sunderland 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

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

Re: Your request for information concerning:

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

The Council aims to provide available information promptly and in any event within 20 working days, unless, exceptionally, there is a need to consider whether the information is exempt from disclosure.

I will contact you again soon in connection with your request.

Please quote the reference below if you contact the Council regarding this request.

Customer Request Number: FOI_3501

show quoted sections

OCEFOI, Sunderland City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Belinda Schwehr,

 

Thank you for the FOI that you recently submitted, (FOI 3501).

 

In order to be able to answer your query we would require further
clarification in order to further consider questions 1 and 5, as below.

 

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

Please provide clarification if you are referring to a client where we act
as appointee only or does this also include those clients for who we act
as Deputy (which includes the appointee function?)

 

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

Please provide clarification to explain what is meant by “overlapping”
role, to what extent?  Please can you be more specific.

 

Could you please clarify being as specific as you can about the
information you are looking for. It will be helpful, and will limit the
work required to locate material, if you can also specify/limit the time
period you would like us to search against.

 

I look forward to receiving your clarification

 

Kind Regards

Angela

 

 

Angela Miller

Compliance Officer

City Development Directorate

Sunderland City Council

Tel: (0191) 561 7567

Email: [1][email address]

 

     [2]oce20902 Supporting Equality Logo Colour

 

[3]www.sunderland.gov.uk

 

 

 

show quoted sections

OCEFOI, Sunderland City Council

3 Attachments

  • Attachment

    image001.jpg

    2K Download

  • Attachment

    image002.jpg

    4K Download

  • Attachment

    FOI 3501 Conflict of Interest in relation to Client Finance Appointeeship and the possibility that social care charges are unlawful.html

    13K Download

Dear Belinda Schwehr,

 

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I can confirm that the Council does hold this
information, as detailed below.

 

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.

 

I must advise you that the Freedom of Information Act does not require a
local authority to supply information when the cost of providing this
exceeds the statutory fees limit of £450. This limit covers approximately
2 ½ days of work in locating and providing information. Having considered
your request, it is clear that the limit would be exceeded if we were to
provide the information to you in full. I must therefore formally refuse
to provide the information you have asked for under Section 12 of the FOI
Act.

 

I can provide the following advice to you about refining your request.

 

We are unable to provide the information in relation to questions 2 and
10, as it is not held in a structured, codified electronic format that
allows for straightforward retrieval and analysis. In order to provide
this information, we would need to undertake a manual analysis of
open-text notes held in individual records to establish the details being
requested.

 

The remaining questions could potentially be considered within the fees
limit, and I can advise you that information in relation to questions 3,
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 14 is readily available.

 

As per my previous email dated 13 April (attached), we would require
further clarification in order to further consider questions 1 and 5.

 

This information has been provided in response to a Freedom of Information
request and this must be acknowledged in any subsequent use of the
information. In addition, the authority must be notified of any proposed
re-use of this information for commercial or other purposes.

 

I hope this is satisfactory. If, however, you are dissatisfied with our
response to your request for information, you can ask for the decision to
be reviewed in reply to this letter, however any request for review must
be submitted within 40 days of the date of this freedom of information
response. The review will be removed from the Directorate and coordinated
by the Council’s team of Solicitors. A request for review should be
directed, by email to [1][Sunderland City Council request email] by post or
by hand addressed to Business Support, Sunderland City Council, Civic
Centre, Burdon Road, Sunderland. SR2 7DN.

 

If this fails to resolve your concerns, then you have the right to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

 

Kind Regards

Angela

 

 

Angela Miller

Compliance Officer

City Development Directorate

Sunderland City Council

Tel: (0191) 561 7567

Email: [2][email address]

 

[3]oce20902 Supporting Equality Logo Colour

 

[4]www.sunderland.gov.uk

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Angela,

Please see below the clarification you asked for regarding Q1 and Q5.

We are not interested in the Deputyship figures, thank you.

By overlapping, we mean to enquire about the extent to which, officers involved in the Appointeeship function or role are also involved in financial assessment or charging, because what we are interested in is the management of conflict of interest that may be perceived.

Link to the email this is in response to:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Kind regards
CASCAIDr

Dear OCEFOI,

We are not interested in the Deputyship figures, thank you.

By overlapping, we mean to enquire about the extent to which, officers involved in the Appointeeship function or role are also involved in financial assessment or charging, because what we are interested in is the management of conflict of interest that may be perceived.

Please complete and return the request.

Kind regards,

CASCAIDr

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

2 Attachments

 

 

Re: Your request for information concerning:

 

APPOINTEESHIP

 

The Council aims to provide available information promptly and in any
event within 20 working days, unless, exceptionally, there is a need to
consider whether the information is exempt from disclosure.

 

I will contact you again soon in connection with your request.

 

Please quote the reference below if you contact the Council regarding this
request.

 

Customer Request Number: FOI_3675

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

OCEFOI, Sunderland City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Belinda Schwehr,

 

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I can confirm that the Council does hold this
information, as detailed below.

 

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

47.

 

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

We are unable to provide the information in relation to questions 2 and
10, as it is not held in a structured, codified electronic format that
allows for straightforward retrieval and analysis. In order to provide
this information, we would need to undertake a manual analysis of
open-text notes held in individual records to establish the details being
requested.

 

3. Which department is responsible for administering appointeeship?

Financial Safeguarding Team.

 

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

Social Care Financial Assessment Team.

 

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

None.

 

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?

None.

 

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

None.

 

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

None.

 

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?

None.

 

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?

We are unable to provide the information in relation to questions 2 and
10, as it is not held in a structured, codified electronic format that
allows for straightforward retrieval and analysis. In order to provide
this information, we would need to undertake a manual analysis of
open-text notes held in individual records to establish the details being
requested.

 

11. Does the council treat appointeeship as a Care Act service?

No.

 

If so, does it charge for that as part of the Care Act charging system?

N/A.

 

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

The Financial Safeguarding Team charge each client £260 per year for
providing the appointeeship function/service.

 

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)?

While the Council can confirm it does hold some information relating to
this matter, all information held is considered exempt from release under
FoI as it has been created and processed solely for the purpose of seeking
legal advice; the exemption at S42 of the Freedom of Information Act
therefore applies.

 

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)?

N/A.

 

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.

While the Council can confirm it does hold some information relating to
this matter, all information held is considered exempt from release under
FoI as it has been created and processed solely for the purpose of seeking
legal advice; the exemption at S42 of the Freedom of Information Act
therefore applies.

 

This information has been provided in response to a Freedom of Information
request and this must be acknowledged in any subsequent use of the
information. In addition, the authority must be notified of any proposed
re-use of this information for commercial or other purposes.

 

I hope this is satisfactory. If, however, you are dissatisfied with our
response to your request for information, you can ask for the decision to
be reviewed in reply to this letter, however any request for review must
be submitted within 40 days of the date of this freedom of information
response. The review will be removed from the Directorate and coordinated
by the Council’s team of Solicitors. A request for review should be
directed, by email to [1][Sunderland City Council request email] by post or
by hand addressed to Business Support, Sunderland City Council, Civic
Centre, Burdon Road, Sunderland. SR2 7DN.

 

If this fails to resolve your concerns, then you have the right to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Steve Hanratty

Business Manager

Economic Regeneration

City Development Directorate

Sunderland City Council

Tel: 0191 5617808

[2]www.sunderland.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections