Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chauhan (Councillor Shuttleworth substituting), Councillor Ibrahim and Councillor Marland.

There were no questions received from members of the public.

The Minutes of the Governance, Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Board held on 30^th July 2025 are attached for approval.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 30^th July 2025 be approved as a correct record.

To request nominations for members of a Task and Finish Group for Review of Financial Support Services (Customer Experience).

The Chair requested nominations for the task and finish group.

The following members were put forward: Councillor McLaren, Councillor Arnott, Councillor Cosgrove and Councillor Rustidge.

Members queried what the terms of reference for the group and it was noted that they would be agreed in the first meeting of the group. Members also questioned the number of members required for the task and finish group and whether members outside of the committee could be put forward. The Chair noted that there was not a set number of members who could be on the group and that whilst members outside of the committee could be members of the group, members of the committee were being asked first.

RESOLVED: That the following members be members of the task and finish group: Councillor McLaren, Councillor Arnott, Councillor Cosgrove and Councillor Rustidge.

A report providing an update, as at 30^th June 2025 of the Council’s 2025/26 forecast revenue budget position, the financial forecast of the Dedicated Schools Grant and the Housing Revenue Account, alongside the financial position of the capital programme together with the revised capital programme 2025/26 to 2029/30.

Lee Walsh presented the report. It was highlighted that there were a lot of assumptions in the report due to it being quarter 1 data. Planned mitigations were discussed, particularly around creating capacity on transformations.

It was noted that there was £33.774m in earmarked and reserved grants, and that the adverse weather reserve was an estimate. It was noted that, regarding the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), Oldham was one of the few authorities still in surplus. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) was in surplus of £3.34m at the end of 2024/25. An update was provided on the Capital Investment programme.

Members queried what practical actions would be undertaken to achieve the planned mitigations for Adult Social Care, and it was noted that the transformation team was looking at support packages and out of borough placements to see whether any could be brought back in borough, and that work was underway with the ICB to deliver those savings.

Members also questioned whether there were any common themes for the amber and red parts of the approved budget reductions. It was noted that packages were being looked at, making sure that there was best value for money and that reviews of packages require staff to carry out complex reviews, which presents its own challenges. It was highlighted that Place was moving in the right direction, due to optimising rounds. Workforce pressures were noted as being due to significant changes in leadership and transformation of work forces which had led to delays in delivery.

Members queried when fruition would be seen on back in borough placements. It was advised that Oldham Total Care had five vacant beds which the council was negotiating for to ensure they were occupied.

Members queried why the DSG is a national issue and whether there was any good practice that could be being learned from elsewhere. Members were advised that pretty much every local authority was in the same position, highlighting that Oldham was proactive when others weren’t, but that Oldham was catching up, due to demand outstripping available resources.

Members noted that the budget in March 2025 planned to balance the budget without the use of reserves, and that £20m was a lot of overspend at the first reporting point. It was noted that the red and amber savings were part of the £20m overspend forecast, not additional to it. It was also noted that there is a structural problem in local government finance in that if demand is higher, the council still has to provide the services, as well as it being the right thing to do. It was noted that other authorities were in a similar position with similar issues. It was highlighted that the government spending review was expected to deliver more funding. The work of the finance delivery board, chaired by leadership, which had been set up was noted.

Members highlighted the overspend in Table 2 of the report, noting the demand in statutory services had been a constant refrain over years, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider the Annual Review of Complaints 2024/25 from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Leo Morgan presented the report. It was noted that the draft had been presented to the board in June, and it had now been published by the Ombudsman.

It was noted that Oldham had seen a decrease in the number of complaints and that Oldham was performing significantly better than the national and regional average. It was highlighted that there was learning culture and that Oldham continues to prioritise early and effective resolution of complaints, and it was noted that the work is a positive story to tell.

Members queried the broader complaints landscape, asking about the 86% of complaints that didn’t go to the Ombudsman and whether these were resolved or unresolved. It was noted that this would be part of an item coming to the next scrutiny board meeting. It was also highlighted that the service will always try to explain the outcome of a decision, but that datawise, at least, the service didn’t know why some chose not to go to the Ombudsman.

Members queried one of the cases that was upheld, noting concern at the use of ‘threat’. It was explained that this was not the view of the council and that the ‘threat’ part of the decision was not substantiated.

Members noted that most complaints were in certain areas, and queried what was being done around supporting vulnerable and excluded people. It was noted that there are advocates and support workers for vulnerable residents so that they didn’t have to try to go through the complex system alone. It was noted that this was done on a case by case basis for corporate issues, and that it would be assessed whether complainants would need support.

Members queried what counted as a complaint, when issues are logged as complaints and whether there is a formal threshold. It was noted that in social care, it was a more black and white, statutory process. In Corporate, there were grey areas and it was more the case if people wanted to complain, although the service tries to treat initial queries as service requests where they can.

Members queried whether the Children’s Residential Home Complaints database would only include children in the home or neighbours as well. It was noted that the database would only include complaints from young people in the homes, but that neighbours could complain through the standard complaints mechanisms.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted and received with thanks.

To note and approve the 2025/26 Scrutiny Board draft work programme.

RESOLVED: That the Governance, Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Board’s Work Programme for 2025/26 be noted.

The Scrutiny Board considered the Key Decision Document, which records key decisions that the authority is due to take.

RESOLVED: That the Key Decision Document be noted.

To consider any rule 13 or 14 decisions taken since the previous meeting.

There were no Rule 13 or 14 decisions to report.