18 September 2006 Executive Member for Social Care and Health
INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING MEETING
EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH
RECORD OF DECISION
An Individual Executive Decision-Making meeting was held on 18September 2006 at 11.30a.m.
PRESENT:
Councillor B Thompson.
**PRESENT AS AN OBSERVER:
Councillor Ferrier.
**OFFICIALS:
P Duffy, R Hicks, A Johnstone and J Shiel.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE LETTER FROM COMMISSION FOR SOCIAL CARE INSPECTION PROGRESS AGAINST ACTION PLAN
The Executive Director of Social Care submitted a report that provided an update with regard to the action plan developed in response to the Annual Review of Performance meeting with the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) in 2005.
CSCI produced an Annual Review of Performance Letter, which detailed areas where they felt improvements needed to be made. In response to this, the Department drew up an Action Plan, which detailed a wide range of actions that needed to be undertaken to address the issues raised and which, in turn, contributed towards better outcomes on CSCI’s six Standards, as detailed in the report.
Good progress had been made with most actions being completed and the remainder were progressing well. Progress against the Action Plan was reported at the performance review meeting with CSCI on 6th September 2006. Work had commenced on the new Action Plan, which would be reported to the Executive in October 2006.
ORDERED
1. That the good progress on the Action Plan be noted.
REASON
The decision was supported by the following reason:-
1. The report updated the Executive Member on the progress against the Action Plan.
REVIEW OF CHARGES FOR ESTATES SERVICES
The Executive Director of Social Care submitted a report that sought approval to implement revised charging arrangements for Estates Services.
The submitted report advised that managing an individual’s estate was one of the legal responsibilities of the Department of Social Care. As part of an ongoing review of the Estates section and its functions, a number of issues had arisen relating to fees and charges for services.
Estates currently held funds of less than £500 for a number of service users who had died. In all cases reasonable steps had been taken without success, to identify next of kin. In Middlesbrough there were currently 283 cases involving a total amount of £29,797. There were 55 accounts involving amounts of £500 or over, which totalled £98,000. The Treasury Solicitor required those monies to be transferred to them and had confirmed that a charge could be made against the estate for the time taken in dealing with estates. The report recommended that a standard fee of £350 be charged against the state for cases referred to the Treasury Solicitor. This would mean a potential windfall income to the Council of £17,500.
The Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984 stated that the Authority could recover from the estate of the deceased person, the expenses incurred in connection with burying or cremating the deceased when required to do so. The report recommended that a standard charge of £250 be made against a person’s estate for administrative costs incurred when the Estates section arranged a funeral. Where possible the next of kin would be notified in advance that such a charge was applicable in order to give them the opportunity to arrange the funeral. Estates section arranged 25 funerals in 2005/6. Of these, 16 cases had sufficient funds in the estate to pay both the funeral costs and the proposed administration costs.
The Section currently held an assortment of ‘valuables’ including jewellery, watches etc. Some items had been stored for over 20 years. It was proposed that where it had not been possible to trace owners or relatives, those items should receive a valuation by an appropriate person and sold. The monies received would be treated as the same as inactive accounts. For new valuables it was proposed that they be retained for 3 years. It was also proposed that a database of pictures of items of any value be kept should anyone come forward to claim them in the future.
In April 2005 Estates Section applied to the Court of Protection for receiverships to manage the finances of 12 service users who received mental health after care services. The fee was currently £355 per service user. This amounted to £4260 per annum, for which no budgetary provision had been made.
The department had a dedicated storage facility for fulfilling its duties, which were outlined in detail within the report. Previously items had been stored until they became unusable e.g. mattresses, cookers, etc. An exercise had been undertaken that had led to a substantial reduction in the storage space required. The report proposed that the User / Carer Support Services Manager should be delegated the discretion to charge where they believed the service user was able to meet any reasonable costs.
ORDERED
1. That those funds in inactive accounts containing less than £500 be retained by the Department and utilised, as detailed within the body of the submitted report.
2. That accounts referred to the Treasury Solicitor include astandard charge of £350.
3. That a standard charge of £250 be made against the estate for the costs incurred in connection with the arranging of afuneral.
4. That the process for dealing with valuables be dealt with as outlined above and within the body of the submitted report.
5. That the User / Carer Support Services Manager be given the discretion to charge for costs related to protection of property, subject to them being satisfied that the charge is both reasonable and the service user is able to pay.
6. That the projected windfall capital of £49,297 be used to fund the first year costs of upgrading the Estates IT system (£49,117).
7. That the new recurring income arising from the recommendations be used to offset the new recurring costs.
REASON
The decisions were supported by the following reason:
The proposed scales of fees and charges would achieve transparency in decision making, bring Middlesbrough into line with regional and national practice and demonstrate value for money.
SANDRINGHAM HOUSE
The Executive Director of Social Care submitted a report that sought approval for the redevelopment of Sandringham House instead of Netherfields House, as an invest to save initiative which would create a specialist day service base for people with learning disabilities.
Approval was given by the Executive on 23 May 2006 to redevelop Netherfields House, however the cost of the development escalated due to the discovery of asbestos in the building and the need for additional access and lift refurbishment as well as improved I.T. and electrical facilities.
Sandringham House had an identical layout to Netherfields House. Although the building would need significant investment to meet the project’s requirements, the amount required was much less than that needed for Netherfields. The estimated cost of the conversion of Netherfields was £550,000. The estimated costs for Sandringham House were £350,000.
ORDERED
That the proposed redevelopment of Sandringham House be approved as a more cost effective alternative to Netherfields House.
REASONS
The decision was supported by the following reasons:
1. The estimated cost of converting Netherfields House was £550,000 and the budget was £350,000. The estimated cost of converting Sandringham House was £350,000.
2. Sandringham House would be vacant from October and was an identical building to Netherfields House. The plan was for Sandringham to be demolished, however the conversion costs associated with Sandringham House were £200,000 less than those for Netherfields House.
OPTION APPRAISAL
In considering the decision, the following options were considered:
Option 1 – Abort the redevelopment of Netherfields House and do nothing.
Option 2 – Redevelop Sandringham House as a lower cost alternative.
ANNUAL REPORT 2005-6 COMPLAINTS COMMENTS AND COMPLIMENTS
The Executive Director of Social Care submitted a report that sought approval of the 7th annual report on Complaints, Comments and Compliments. The report covered the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006.
The report advised that Councils had a statutory duty to provide a complaints procedure for Social Services. There was also the requirement that an annual report be produced providing statistical data on the quantity of complaints and the adequacy of the procedure. A copy of the annual report was attached to the submitted report as an appendix. The report contained details of the systems that had been established by the department. Statistical information was also provided along with the local objectives for 2006/7 and a review of performance in 2005/6.
ORDERED
That the contents of the Annual report 2005–6 complaints, compliments and comments be approved.
REASON
The decision was supported by the following reason:
It fulfilled the department’s statutory duty to provide a complaints procedure for Adult Social Care services.
The decision will come into force on 26 September 2006, which will be five working days after the publication of the decision, unless the decision becomes subject to the call-in procedure.