Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that Councillor Harvard be appointed as Chair.

Councillor M Mutton declared an interest in the matter referred to in minute 5 below in that she had worked with the appellant’s representative in the 1970’s.  The interest was not considered to be prejudicial as they had not had contact since that time.  Neither Councillor Mutton nor the appellant’s representative had any objection to continuing to hear the appeal.

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and the public be excluded from the meeting for the items of business indicated in Minutes 5 and 6 below, relating to "Appeal – Community Services – Care Service Contribution ", on the grounds that these items involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12A of that Act, in particular Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of that Schedule.

There were no further items of public business.

To hear a number of appeals against Care Service Contributions. 

The Committee considered an appeal by Mrs C against an assessment of charges for her care package contribution. They received written and oral representations from the Appellant's representative explaining the grounds for the appeal and written and oral representations from the People Directorate explaining the assessment and calculation of the care package charge.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  Having considered the representations made and given careful consideration to the totality of the financial circumstances of the appellant, the Committee felt it was reasonably practical to expect the appellant to pay the weekly service charge as assessed.

2.  Should there be any existing arrears on Mrs C’s account, that these be written off.

3.  Mrs C be strongly advised to seek professional assistance from a money management / financial advisor and that a reassessment of charges be carried out as soon as possible in light of the additional information provided to the Committee.

The Committee considered an appeal by Mr G against an assessment of charges for his care package contribution. They received written representations from the Appellant's representative explaining the grounds for the appeal and written and oral representations from the People Directorate explaining the assessment and calculation of the care package charge.

RESOLVED that, having considered the representations made and given careful consideration to the totality of the financial circumstances of the appellant, the Committee felt it was not reasonably practical to expect the appellant to pay the weekly service charge as assessed.

There were no further items of private business.