DOCSLIB.ORG

Conflicts of Interest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conflicts of Interest SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL Standards Committee Report of: Julie Bullen, Director of Customer Service/ Lee Adams, Deputy Chief Executive ______________________________________________________________ Date: 20th December 2011 ______________________________________________________________ Subject: Annual Report of Local Government Ombudsman ______________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Andrew Fellows, Customer Service Manager and Jenny Callaghan (Complaints Manager) ______________________________________________________________ Summary: This report provides an overview of the Local Government Ombudsman’s (LGO) Annual Review Letter (Appendix B) to Sheffield City Council, and also contains details of the complaints received, and formally referred and determined by the LGO during the twelve months from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (Appendix A). The report is jointly presented by the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Customer Services, who are, respectively, the Council’s LGO Monitoring Officer, and the Director responsible for managing the Complaints Service. ______________________________________________________________ Recommendations: The Standards Committee is asked to consider the LGO’s Annual Review Letter and LGO Annual Report in order to provide its view on the performance of LGO complaints and the issues raised. ____________________________________________________________ Background Papers: Local Government Ombudsman’s Annual Review Letter Category of Report: Open Report of the Deputy Chief Executive/ Director of Customer Services – Annual Report of Local Government Ombudsman 1 Summary 1.1 This report provides an overview of the Local Government Ombudsman’s (LGO) Annual Review Letter (Appendix B) to Sheffield City Council, and also contains details of the complaints received, and formally referred and determined by the LGO during the twelve months from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (Appendix A). 1.2 The report is a jointly presented by the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Customer Services, who are, respectively, the Council’s LGO Monitoring Officer, and the Director responsible for managing the Council’s Complaints Service. 2 What does this mean for the people of Sheffield? 2.1 The delivery of effective customer service, including ‘getting it right first time’, is an important priority for the Council. However, we recognise that the Council does not always get it right first time, and so an effective approach to dealing with dissatisfaction and complaints is an important part of the work of the Council. Central to this is the learning that comes out of the complaints we receive. 2.2 Day to day responsibility for dealing with complaints rests with service managers and Directors. Customer Services provides support to services, including guidance and advice, complaints management tools, and quality assurance processes. In addition, on behalf of the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer, Customer Services also manages the day to day relationship with the LGO. 2.3 Included in an effective approach to complaints management is a robust approach to learning. The development of our approach to learning across Council services and strategic partners is an area that will be developed further by Customer Services through the Customer First Programme. 2.4 The Customer First Programme is a strategic programme, which is transforming the way the Council delivers customer service. As part of the programme, the Council has introduced a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, which will improve the experience of people who contact the Council. The CRM system will be extended during 2012 to include the management of complaints and customer feedback. 2.5 Section 4 and 5 of the Annual Report (Appendix A) highlights the learning from complaints dealt with by the LGO, and includes a summary of the remedies and improvements made. 3 Background 3.1 The LGO provides a free, independent and impartial service. It considers complaints about the administrative actions of councils and some other authorities. It cannot question what a council has done simply because someone does not agree with it. If it finds something has gone wrong, such as poor service or service failure, and that a person has suffered as a result, the LGO aims to get it put right by recommending a suitable remedy. The LGO also uses the findings from investigation work to help local authorities provide better public services through initiatives such as special reports, training and annual reviews. 3.2 The LGO writes to the Council in the form of an Annual Review Letter (Appendix B) to summarise the main issues raised in respect of complaints received against Sheffield City Council. 3.3 In addition, Customer Services manages the Council’s approach to Ombudsman complaints on behalf of the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer, and compiles an annual report that provides additional information about our performance (Appendix A). 4 Key issues in 2010 – 2011 Annual Review Letter and Annual Report 4.1 The LGO received 210 enquiries/complaints about Sheffield City Council during 2010/11. 4.2 Sixty-two of these were signposted back to the Council’s local complaints procedures. A further 41 resulted in informal advice being given to the complainant. 4.3 The remaining 107 were forwarded to the LGO Investigation Team for consideration. 4.4 During 2010/11, the LGO formally referred 155 complaints to the Council - 62 of these were referred to the Council as ‘premature’, with the Council asked to investigate and respond to the complainant under local complaint procedures; and 60 were deemed outside of jurisdiction for other reasons or decided with the LGO making no or only informal enquiries. 4.5 The LGO closed 36 complaints during 2010/11 on the basis of a local settlement. 4.6 The Council paid £7,975 in compensatory payments and other reimbursements. 4.7 By far the largest number of complaints were about Housing; the LGO categorised 33% of contacts as Housing. 4.8 The Council’s average response time to initial LGO written enquiries during 2010/11 was 33.6 days. 4.9 Included at Appendix D is the 2011-12 Quarter 2 report, which shows the details of the complaints dealt with by the LGO so far this year. 5 How Sheffield Compares 5.1 Housing continues to be the highest subject category of complaint in Sheffield. This was also the picture nationally, with ’housing’ complaints accounting for 20% of the total number of complaints received by the LGO during 2010/11. 5.2 Across the core cities, Sheffield has the second highest percentage of Ombudsman complaints closed on the basis of a local settlement (39%), compared with other core cities which ranged from 28% - 41%. 5.3 Average response times to initial formal enquiries during 2010/11 across the core cities ranged from 16.8 to 33.6 days (Sheffield’s response time was 33.6 days). However, the LGO recognises that during 2010/11, Sheffield City Council dealt with a significant number of preliminary enquiries that are not included in the published response time figures. The Council received 53 preliminary enquiries during 2010/11, and responded with an average response time of 9 days. 6 Current and future priorities 6.1 The main priority for 2011/12 continues to be to reduce initial response times on formal LGO enquiries without adversely affecting the quality of responses. 6.2 The other priority for 2011/12 is to explore the options for future recording of Ombudsman enquiries/complaints as part of the Customer First Programme. This is so we can improve the detail of formal recording and reporting on Ombudsman complaints, and most importantly, improve the learning that stems from them. 7 Recommendation 7.1 The Standards Committee is asked to consider the LGO’s Annual Review Letter and LGO Annual Report in order to provide its view on the performance of LGO complaints and the issues raised. Appendix A Annual Report of Local Government Ombudsman Complaints 1 April 2010 – 31 March 2011 Customer Services - Sheffield City Council Annual Report Content Section Page 1.0 Context/overview 2 2.0 Enquiries/complaints received 2 3.0 Outcomes of complaints 4 4.0 Reports/Local Settlements 5 5.0 Learning from complaints 11 6.0 Complaint Handling/Response Times 12 Sheffield City Council 7.0 Developments 2010/11 13 8.0 Priorities for 2010/11 14 Contact: Complaints Team Appendix B: LGO Annual Review 2010/11 Floor 2 Howden House Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH Appendix C: Core City Comparative Information t: 0114 2734660 f: 0114 2734652 e: [email protected] www.sheffield.gov.uk Customer Services - Sheffield City Council 1 Annual Report 1.0 Context / Overview This report provides information about the complaints received, referred and determined by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) in relation to Sheffield City Council during the twelve months between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011. The report incorporates and builds upon the feedback received from the Local Government Ombudsman as part of the Annual Review of the complaints they have dealt with about Sheffield City Council during 2010/11. A copy of the Ombudsman’s Annual Review Letter is attached as Appendix B. The Local Government Ombudsman’s office provides a free, independent and impartial service. It considers complaints about the administrative actions of councils and some other authorities. It cannot question what a council has done simply because someone does not agree with it. If it finds something has gone wrong, such as poor service, service failure, delay or bad advice, and that a person has suffered as a result, the LGO aims to get it put right by recommending a suitable remedy. The LGO also uses the findings from investigation work to help authorities provide better public services through initiatives such as special reports, training and annual reviews. 2.0 Enquiries and complaints received The LGO Advice Service received 210 enquiries/complaints about Sheffield City Council during 2010/11. Sixty-two of these were signposted informally/formally back to the Council’s local complaints procedures.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical and Contemporary Archaeologies of Social Housing: Changing Experiences of the Modern and New, 1870 to Present
    Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Emma Dwyer School of Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester 2014 Thesis abstract: Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Emma Dwyer This thesis has used building recording techniques, documentary research and oral history testimonies to explore how concepts of the modern and new between the 1870s and 1930s shaped the urban built environment, through the study of a particular kind of infrastructure that was developed to meet the needs of expanding cities at this time – social (or municipal) housing – and how social housing was perceived and experienced as a new kind of built environment, by planners, architects, local government and residents. This thesis also addressed how the concepts and priorities of the Victorian and Edwardian periods, and the decisions made by those in authority regarding the form of social housing, continue to shape the urban built environment and impact on the lived experience of social housing today. In order to address this, two research questions were devised: How can changing attitudes and responses to the nature of modern life between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries be seen in the built environment, specifically in the form and use of social housing? Can contradictions between these earlier notions of the modern and new, and our own be seen in the responses of official authority and residents to the built environment? The research questions were applied to three case study areas, three housing estates constructed between 1910 and 1932 in Birmingham, London and Liverpool.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex F –List of Consultees
    ANNEX F –LIST OF CONSULTEES Local highway authorities Leicester City Council Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Leicestershire County Council Bath & NE Somerset Council Lincolnshire County Council Bedfordshire County Council Liverpool City Council Birmingham City Council Local Government Association Blackburn & Darwen London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Blackpool Borough Council London Borough of Barnet Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Bexley Borough of Poole London Borough of Brent Bournemouth Borough Council London Borough of Bromley Bracknell Forest Borough Council London Borough of Camden Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Croydon Brighton and Hove City Council London Borough of Ealing Bristol City Council London Borough of Enfield Buckinghamshire County Council London Borough of Greenwich Bury Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hackney Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council London Borough of Hammersmith and Cambridgeshire County Council Fulham Cheshire County Council London Borough of Haringey City of York Council London Borough of Harrow Cornwall County Council London Borough of Havering Corporation of London London Borough of Hillingdon County of Herefordshire District Council London Borough of Hounslow Coventry City Council London Borough of Islington Cumbria County Council London Borough of Lambeth Cumbria Highways London Borough of Lewisham Darlington Borough Council London Borough of Merton Derby City Council London Borough of Newham Derbyshire County Council London
    [Show full text]
  • Yorkshire and Humberside)
    NOTES OF A MEETING OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE INDEPENDENT MEMBERS’ REGIONAL FORUM (YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE) 24 TH OCTOBER 2006 PRESENT: Mike Wilkinson - Leeds City Council Ann Becket - West Yorkshire Police Authority Martin Allingham - North East Lincolnshire Council Alan Carter - South Yorkshire Police Authority/South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority Gerald Burnett - Richmondshire District Council James Daglish - North Yorkshire County Council Cheryl Grant - Leeds City Council Peter Neale - Richmondshire District Council Lynn Knowles - Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council/West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority John Ross - North East Derbyshire District Council Phil Marshall - West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority Joyce Clarke - Humberside Fire and Rescue Authority Brian Cottingham - Kingston-upon-Hull City Council Keith Robinson - Kingston-upon-Hull City Council Dr Michael French - Harrogate Borough Council Richard Burton - South Yorkshire Police Authority William Stroud - Humberside Police Authority Mary Rose Barker - East Riding of Yorkshire Borough Council G Polley - East Riding of Yorkshire Borough Council Michael Andrew - Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council D G Hughes - Humberside Fire and Rescue Authority IN ATTENDANCE: Amy Bowler - Secretary to the Forum, Leeds City Council 1.0 Apologies for Absence and Welcome to New Members 1.1 The following apologies for absence were reported: Denise Wilson – North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority Angela Bingham – South Yorkshire Police Authority George – Wakefield Metropolitan
    [Show full text]
  • Homelessness Prevention Strategy 2018
    Wolverhampton WV1 1SH City of Wolverhampton Council, Civic Centre, St. Peter’s Square, St.Peter’s Council,Civic Centre, City ofWolverhampton wolverhampton. audio orinanotherlanguagebycalling01902 551155 You can get this information in large print, braille, WolverhamptonToday Wolverhampton_Today @WolvesCouncil gov.uk gov.uk 01902 551155 WCC 1875 05/2019 wolverhampton. andIntervention #Prevention 2018 -2022 Strategy Prevention Homelessness Chapter title gov.uk Contents Foreword Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Development of the strategy 6 Defining Homelessness 6 National Context 7 Homelessness Data 8 Homelessness Prevention and Relief 9 UK Government Priorities 10 West Midlands Combined Authority 11 Local Context 12 Since the publication of our last Homelessness Strategy, we have seen dramatic changes to the Demographic Data 13 environment in which homelessness services are delivered. Changes resulting from the economic downturn, and in particular welfare reform, are impacting Under One Roof 13 detrimentally on many low- income groups and those susceptible to homelessness. Well documented Strategic Context 15 funding cuts to Councils are coupled with falls in support and funding streams to other statutory agencies, and those in the voluntary and community sector. Homelessness Strategy 2018-2022 16 As a result, this new strategy is being developed in a context of shrinking resources and increasing demand for services. There is also considerable uncertainty over the future. Homelessness prevention 16 These factors weigh heavily on the determination of what can realistically be achieved in the years Rough Sleepers 18 ahead. Nevertheless, the challenge and our aspiration remains to prevent homelessness wherever possible in line with the new Homelessness Reduction Act. Vulnerability and Health 19 The response to this challenge will be based on the same core principle as that which underpinned Vulnerabilities 20 our previous strategies effective partnership working.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Yorkshire and Humber AWP Meeting 17Th November 2020 Virtual Meeting Via Microsoft Teams
    Minutes of Yorkshire and Humber AWP Meeting 17th November 2020 Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams Chair: Vanessa Rowell Capita Secretariat: Vanessa Rowell Capita Attendees: Dave Parrish Yorkshire Dales National Park Carole Howarth West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Bradford Michael Hodges Breedon Geoff Storey Mineral Products Association Mark Hill North York Moors National Park Mark North Minerals Planning Association Helen Miller Leeds City council Joan Jackson North Yorkshire CC Ben Ayres MPA and BAA Hannah Henderson MHCLG Tiffany Lloyd Tarmac Mark Wrigley Crown Estate Malcolm Ratcliffe W Clifford Watts & MPA Andrew Willerton North Lincolnshire Council Ryan Shepherd Rotherham council Nick Reeves Kirklees Council Roger Gray Hull City Council Rachel Thirlwall Marine Management Organisation Peter Huxtable BAA Louise White Leeds City Council Helen McCluskie Doncaster council Anita Seymour Calderdale Council James Durham East Riding of Yorkshire Council Farzana Tabasum Kirklees Council Apologies: Ian Garrett Wakefield Council 1 Chris Hanson Sheffield City Council Katie Gowthorpe East Riding of Yorkshire Council Vicky Perkin North Yorkshire County Council Item Description 1. Introductions and apologies 2. Minutes and actions of last meeting 3. Yorkshire & Humber AMR - ratification 4 Local Aggregate Assessments 5. Aggregate Minerals Survey update 2019 6. Planning White Paper 7. MPAs Update 8. Industry Update 9. MCHLG update 10. AOB 1. Introductions 1.1 Vanessa Rowell (VR) explained that Vicky Perkin has sent her apologies and therefore VR will be the Interim Chair for this meeting. VR Welcomed everyone to the meeting. 2. Minutes and actions of last meeting 2.1 VR went through the minutes from the last meeting asking if there were any comments on the minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Factsheet
    Disability Sheffield Information Service Housing Factsheet Disability Sheffield Information Service, The Circle, 33 Rockingham Lane, Sheffield S1 4FW Tel (0114) 253 6750 E mail: [email protected] Website: www.disabilitysheffield.org.uk 1 In this factsheet we aim to provide information and details of services that offer assistance in the search for housing that is suitable for your requirements. We have produced a separate factsheet “Equipment and Adaptations” containing information on equipment, adaptations and technology to promote independent living including adaptations for your home. Please contact us if you would like a copy. Alternatively you can download the factsheet from our website. Social Housing Sheffield City Council was one of the first areas to change to a Choice Based Lettings (CBL) system for people wanting to live in social housing. This system allows people to bid for homes that are advertised and is designed to provide more choice particularly regarding location and property type. While CBL does give people greater choice it can put vulnerable people at a disadvantage. Sheffield City Council’s Health and Housing team can offer support and assistance to vulnerable customers on request ( see later entry for details ). Sheffield City Council own approximately 43,000 properties, although not all will be accessible, for rent across the city. To view and bid for Sheffield Council and Housing Association properties you must log in or register to use the Sheffield Property Shop website, and join the housing register. More information on this process can be found on the Sheffield Council website page Register & Bid for a Council Property.
    [Show full text]
  • Staffordshire County Council 5 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 1 Sandwell 1 Wolverhampton City Council 1 Stoke on Trent Ci
    Staffordshire County Council 5 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 1 Sandwell 1 Wolverhampton City Council 1 Stoke on Trent City Council 1 Derby City Council 3 Nottinghamshire County Council 2 Education Otherwise 2 Shropshire County Council 1 Hull City Council 1 Warwickshire County Council 3 WMCESTC 1 Birmingham City Council 1 Herefordshire County Council 1 Worcestershire Childrens Services 1 Essex County Council 1 Cheshire County Council 2 Bedfordshire County Council 1 Hampshire County Council 1 Telford and Wrekin Council 1 Leicestershire County Council 1 Education Everywhere 1 Derbyshire County Council 1 Jun-08 Cheshire County Council 3 Derby City Travellers Education Team 2 Derbyshire LA 1 Education Everywhere 1 Staffordshire County Council 6 Essex County Council 1 Gloustershire County Council 1 Lancashire Education Inclusion Service 1 Leicestershire County Council 1 Nottingham City 1 Oxford Open Learning Trust 1 Shropshire County Council 1 Solihull Council 2 Stoke on Trent LA 1 Telford and Wrekin Authority 2 Warwickshire County Council 4 West Midlands Consortium Education Service 1 West Midlands Regional Partnership 1 Wolverhampton LA 1 Nov-08 Birmingham City Council 2 Cheshire County Council 3 Childline West Midlands 1 Derby City LA 2 Derby City Travellers Education Team 1 Dudley LA 1 Education At Home 1 Education Everywhere 1 Education Otherwise 2 Essex County Council 1 Gloucestershire County Council 2 Lancashire Education Inclusion Service 1 Leicestershire County Council 1 Nottinghamshire LA 2 SERCO 1 Shropshire County Council
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authority / Combined Authority / STB Members (July 2021)
    Local Authority / Combined Authority / STB members (July 2021) 1. Barnet (London Borough) 24. Durham County Council 50. E Northants Council 73. Sunderland City Council 2. Bath & NE Somerset Council 25. East Riding of Yorkshire 51. N. Northants Council 74. Surrey County Council 3. Bedford Borough Council Council 52. Northumberland County 75. Swindon Borough Council 4. Birmingham City Council 26. East Sussex County Council Council 76. Telford & Wrekin Council 5. Bolton Council 27. Essex County Council 53. Nottinghamshire County 77. Torbay Council 6. Bournemouth Christchurch & 28. Gloucestershire County Council 78. Wakefield Metropolitan Poole Council Council 54. Oxfordshire County Council District Council 7. Bracknell Forest Council 29. Hampshire County Council 55. Peterborough City Council 79. Walsall Council 8. Brighton & Hove City Council 30. Herefordshire Council 56. Plymouth City Council 80. Warrington Borough Council 9. Buckinghamshire Council 31. Hertfordshire County Council 57. Portsmouth City Council 81. Warwickshire County Council 10. Cambridgeshire County 32. Hull City Council 58. Reading Borough Council 82. West Berkshire Council Council 33. Isle of Man 59. Rochdale Borough Council 83. West Sussex County Council 11. Central Bedfordshire Council 34. Kent County Council 60. Rutland County Council 84. Wigan Council 12. Cheshire East Council 35. Kirklees Council 61. Salford City Council 85. Wiltshire Council 13. Cheshire West & Chester 36. Lancashire County Council 62. Sandwell Borough Council 86. Wokingham Borough Council Council 37. Leeds City Council 63. Sheffield City Council 14. City of Wolverhampton 38. Leicestershire County Council 64. Shropshire Council Combined Authorities Council 39. Lincolnshire County Council 65. Slough Borough Council • West of England Combined 15. City of York Council 40.
    [Show full text]
  • Birmingham City Council (Appellants) V Ali (FC) and Others (FC) (Respondents) Moran (FC) (Appellant) V Manchester City Council (Respondents)
    HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2008–09 [2009] UKHL 36 on appeal from: [2008]EWCA Civ 1228 [2008]EWCA Civ 378 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Birmingham City Council (Appellants) v Ali (FC) and others (FC) (Respondents) Moran (FC) (Appellant) v Manchester City Council (Respondents) Appellate Committee Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury Counsel Appellant (Birmingham City Council): Respondent: (Ali): Ashley Underwood QC Jan Luba QC Catherine Rowlands Zia Nabi (Instructed by Birmingham City Council) (Instructed by Community Law Partnership) Appellant: (Moran): Respondent (Manchester City Council): Jan Luba QC Clive Freedman QC Adam Fullwood Zoe Thompson (Instructed by Shelter Greater Manchester Housing (Instructed by Manchester City Council) Centre ) Interveners: Secretary of State for Communities and Interveners: Women’s Aid Federation: Local Government: Stephen Knafler Martin Chamberlain Liz Davies (Instructed by Treasury Solicitors) (Instructed by Sternberg Reed ) Hearing dates: 26 JANUARY, 28 and 29 APRIL 2009 ON WEDNESDAY 1 JULY 2009 HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Birmingham City Council (Appellants) v Ali (FC) and others (FC) (Respondents) Moran (FC) (Appellant) v Manchester City Council (Respondents) [2009] UKHL 36 LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the opinion which has been prepared by my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury has contributed. I agree with it, and for the reasons they have given I would allow both appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Claims Against Local Authorities
    Compensation claims against local authorities Harry Fairhead Policy Analyst, TaxPayers’ Alliance January 2016 his research paper looks at compensation claims made against local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales in 2013-14 and 2014-15. It gives details of payments made by the T authority or its insurers (including outstanding estimates) as well as details of the claim. Where the authority has paid out or made an excess payment there is a direct cost to taxpayers. Where the insurer has paid out this will be reflected in higher premiums for the authority and greater cost to the taxpayer. The key findings of this research are: • Over £104 million was paid out in compensation in 2013-14 and 2014-15. • There were more than 40,000 compensation claims paid out in 2013-14 and 2014-15. • Claim details and payments are available for all local authorities. Full data tables can be downloaded by clicking here • The London Borough with the most paid out was Lambeth with £5,264,071 • The Scottish Council with the most paid out was City of Glasgow with £2,735,960 • The Metropolitan district with the most paid out was Manchester City Council with £5,119,419 • The Non-metropolitan district with the most paid out was Basildon District Council with £1,588,443 • The Unitary council with the most paid out was Luton Borough Council with £1,910,260 • The Welsh Council with the greatest total claims (including outstanding estimates) was Vale of Glamorgan with £1,120,528 • The County Council with the most paid out was Norfolk County Council with £3,474,123 Financial support for this research paper was provided by the Politics and Economics Research Trust (charity number 1121849).
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Sheffield CC's Cost of Care Exercise 2018
    Review of Sheffield City Council’s Cost of Care Exercise Consultation Report 2017 Page 111 12th January 2018 Philip Mickelborough Kingsbury Hill Fox Limited 07941 331322 K H F [email protected] www.kingsburyhillfox.com Kingsbury Hill Fox Limited Review of Sheffield City Council’s Cost of Care Exercise 2017 Contents Summary Section Page This review is of the consultation report issued by Sheffield City Council following its Cost of Care exercise in 2017. Summary It is recognised that it is in the interests of care homes and the Council that 1. The background 1 the commissioners should have an understanding of the actual cost of 2. Kingsbury Hill Fox Limited 1 providing care. 3. Alignment of interests 2 4. The Council’s methodology 3 The report is not specific about the sample used for its analysis, but it does 5. The response and the data sources 3 appear to be small and unrepresentative. 6. The analysis 6.1 Weighting 4 The analysis used unweighted averages and took no account of resident Page 112 6.2 Resident dependency levels 4 dependency levels. 6.3 Allowing for inflation 5 7. Specific costs Some of the data used in the report appear to be erroneous; in particular the 7.1 Nursing costs 5 nursing costs. 7.2 Personal care staff 5 7.3 Other costs 6 The method of calculating the notional return on capital is not independent 8. Corporate overheads 6 of the operator’s personal circumstances. 9. Rent/mortgage costs 9.1 Return on capital value/mortgage payments 7 The Council’s plans for the way in which purchases care home places are 9.2 Why not use the actual figures provided for 7 enlightened but some of its reasoning is based on sub-optimal calculations.
    [Show full text]
  • Mifriendly Cities – Migration Friendly Cities Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton 2017/18-2020/21
    MiFriendly Cities – Migration Friendly Cities Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton 2017/18-2020/21 Summary In partnership with Coventry City and Wolverhampton City Councils, Birmingham City Council has been successful in securing EU funding to deliver a three year MiFriendly Cities project. The project, which is backed by West Midlands Combined Authority, will see the three Councils working together to develop new and innovative activity which can help integrate economic migrants, refugees and asylum seekers into the West Midlands. This approach provides an opportunity for Birmingham City Council to explore how it can work with partners and migrants in a way which can help to expand the current range of activity, which mostly focuses on addressing the basic needs and legal rights of migrants. As part of this approach there is a particular focus on changing attitudes to migrants, developing employment pathways, social enterprise and active citizenship. Coventry City Council will be managing the whole project but Birmingham City Council will be required to project manage and coordinate activity which specifically relates to Birmingham, across all the different work packages and activities. Birmingham has also been asked to lead the regional work on “Active Citizenship”. Introduction Following a competitive bidding process “MiFriendly Cities” was chosen by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) as one of three projects across Europe which they would like to support. This was from two hundred proposals which were submitted. To support the delivery of the MiFriendly Cities project the EU is providing €4,280,640 over three years to Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton City Councils. This is irrespective of the Brexit process and the UK leaving the EU in 2019.
    [Show full text]