The Strategic Director, Social Care and Education, will provide an verbal update to the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission on Leicestershire County Care Limited (LCCL).
Minutes:
The Strategic Director for Social Care and Education provided a verbal update to the Commission on Leicestershire County Care Limited (LCCL). The following points were made:
· LCCL had taken over a number of care homes on the agreement they would pay a Capital sum over a period of time. The finance arrangement involved a significant capital payment, the last element of which £265k should have been paid in September. LCCL had asked for a deferment to take instalment payments to the end of the financial year. The Council said it would not agree unless LCCL ceased its proposal to make negative changes to terms and conditions for staff.
· Concern was expressed by the Council that LCCL in fact went ahead and changed the terms and conditions for staff during the summer of 2020. Firm representations were made by the Authority, though it did not have any contractual powers or authority to prevent any changes. The changes were undertaken and without exception the current staff body had accepted the changes to terms and conditions and continued to work under new contracts. The quality of care continued to meet the standards and there were no issues reported.
· The final payment had not been received. A request for deferment and instalment payments had again been received after the due date for payment. The Authority had asked for evidence for reasons why LCCL needed to pay in instalments, which had been provided and showed the organisation was in a significantly worse state now than previously.
· Looking at the financial position of the organisation, it would be counter-productive for the residents if the organisation were to fail. A discussion would be had with finance colleagues on how to chase payment as a bad debt.
· The Authority had been advised not to hold back the value of the debt from monies such as infection control monies as they were a grant from DHSC, and the Council would not have any authority to deduct the outstanding amount from it. It was also considered to be precarious to the organisation given the current situation.
Members had further discussion following the update. Points made and questions raised were responded to as follows:
· Members commented on their disappointment on how the organisation had treated its staff. Members further noted that the option for a deferred payment plan was not being considered, but if the worse came to the worse would it not be better to have a deferred payment plan to recoup some of the money. The Strategic Director responded there was no risk the Authority would not receive the £200k but was a question of whether it received it quickly or over a period of months. If the organisation went into financial collapse, there were sufficient routes where the money could be recovered. It was further noted the Authority had been clear with LCCL there was a legal agreement that they owed the £200k.
· LCCL had been flagged as a concern at the last meeting of the Commission, since which a home in the chain outside the city had been closed by the CQC, and the payment owed had not been honoured. Members were worried at what the situation might be at the next Commission meeting. Members asked if Essex CC had been contacted. If so, what were the outcomes of those discussions and was the City Council fearful of the current position of the organisation? Members were informed that councils were required to contract with any care providers that met the standards offset by the CQC, and if a member of the public went into a care home that met national requirements, the authority would have to support them. It was noted the authority was actively engaged in all homes, though its levers of control were very limited as long as they met CQC standards.
· It was further reported a conversation had been had with a contracting director at Essex CC, who had sold care homes to Essex County Care Limited seven to eight years previously. Essex CC had had issues with care in one of the homes and the council had taken the decision to terminate the contract with the home. ECCL had then chosen to close 4 out of 5 homes. ECCL had persons placed by the local authority the remaining open home, and the quality of care was reported as good.
· Officers had also spoken with the CQC for the local area to understand what concerns they might have. They confirmed there were no problems in terms of the care in the home that was open which was reported as good. However, the CQC had concerns about LCCL, ECCL and Strathmore Care around leadership rather than financial concerns, and they were monitoring the situation. The CQC were aware of what was going on in Leicestershire and had an overall view. A home was recently closed in Leicestershire due to the quality of care. Checks had been undertaken on LCCL homes in the city and care was reported as good, with no concerns identified, but would continue be watched closely by the Authority to ensure quality of care was not compromised for those people the Authority supported.
Members reiterated concerns over changes to the terms and conditions of staff, the closure of The Limes in Hinckley, the debt of a quarter of a million pounds to the Council and the fact the organisation was reporting financial troubles after previously recording a profit of over £1m, and the CQC questioning the leadership of LCCL, ECCL and Strathmore homes. Members were worried for the care homes’ staff and residents and the culture around LCCL. Members asked that LCCL be kept as a standing agenda item to monitor the situation and that the City and County Council’s finance people look forensically at the accounts for LCCL due to concerns over the organisation’s finances.
The Scrutiny Commission expressed its continuing concerns and disappointment in LCCL and requested continued monitoring of LCCL with a progress update to be provided at each forthcoming Scrutiny Commission meeting.
Councillor Russell, Deputy City Mayor Social Care and Anti-Poverty, agreed the request and importance for regular reporting on LCCL. She stated that understanding of both the financial and quality position of LCCL and their homes within the City was vital. It was stated the Quality Assurance Team were working with the CQC and others to ensure quality was maintained. Members noted the issue around finances was key and the potential for wider knock on impact. The authority was using the opportunity for the request for a deferral to see the organisation’s finances, and there would be no difficulty in bringing back an update to subsequent meetings.
The Chair expressed worry about staff arrangements and contracts and said the way the organisation was working was deplorable. The Chair recommended the organisation continue to be monitored and the item be brought to the next meeting as a verbal update and be placed as a regular item on the agenda as Scrutiny Commission Members had concerns regarding the company. The recommendation was agreed by Members of the Scrutiny Commission.
The Chair thanked the officers for the update.
AGREED:
That the organisation continue to be monitored, and the item be brought to the next meeting as a verbal update and be placed as a regular item on the agenda.