The Care Act 2014

nannytone_2

thats how mine is too!
savings are considered above 16k, and by the time savings reach 50k you would have to pay for care in full.
the only benefit that they expect you to contribute from is mid rate DLA or low rate AA.
there is no co funding for people on low rate DLA regardless of income. only savings are counted.
if weekly income is below £150 then no co payment.
the maximum anyone is asked to contribute ( without savings of 16k or over) is £142 a month.

cattermole

The other thing they are doing on their Benefits Charging Policy is apparently if you have a free minor adaptation of under £1000 which is free in the Guidance at the moment and is going to be regulated come April.

They are saying if the house is then subsequently sold or transferred they will claim the money back + 7% for fees?!

I haven't raised this with them yet, but what powers are they using to do this? Any ideas anyone?

Free means free doesn't it? I can't see they have any powers to do this either.

cattermole

nannytone wrote: »

thats how mine is too!
savings are considered above 16k, and by the time savings reach 50k you would have to pay for care in full.
the only benefit that they expect you to contribute from is mid rate DLA or low rate AA.
there is no co funding for people on low rate DLA regardless of income. only savings are counted.
if weekly income is below £150 then no co payment.
the maximum anyone is asked to contribute ( without savings of 16k or over) is £142 a month.

Well it is and it isn't Nanny because the amounts they have set as income are well above the minimum amounts the government specify + 25% for all age groups. Whereas as here income isn't considered at all only whether you are in receipt of Disability Benefits.

No one gets care paid if there savings are over the upper limit in any authority Upper savings threshold in England (above which the person has to pay all their costs) is £23,250.

nannytone_2

so there is no lower limit that stops people having to contribute?
that seems very harsh.
i am well aware how well funded our social care is, and am more than willing to pay my part.
though if they raised it to the amount that some authorities charge, then i would have to consider if i was willing to varry on.
after all... what would be the point in having a PA if i couldnt afford to make use of her services ( taking me to the gym, shopping, to see the grandbabies etc)
but i know that i am in the minot=rity as my only needs are reading things for me and taking me out and about ;

cattermole

Yep and the way they are operating it, I'm 100% sure is not legal.

The point is Nanny in law they cannot charge anyone that takes them below a certain limit.

Which is Income Support + 25% and only to that level after assessing any DRE and allowing that.

So if as in our Authority they automatically take all SDP + 1/2 of DLA if someone's DRE exceeds what they have left in DLA they are below that limit. So without a detailed DRE assessment they cannot possibly know whether they are or not.

They also say 1/2 of DLA/AA care again ambiguous because they cannot take any of the higher rate DLA if they don't provide night services.

onlygoingforward

cattermole wrote: »

I thought most Councils had a separate team for the Financial Assessment as opposed to Welfare Rights. Anyway most Councils are surely using the methodology laid down by the NAFAO? I know some outsource to a separate company.

I'm sure you will agree that not individually assessing any DRE at all is not going to be acceptable or legal?!. There have been very few legal challenges to DRE not being allowed, I tend to think this is because people don't know their rights. Plus it's an emerging trend of LA's taking Disability Benefits into charging

Any Council that takes anyone below that level would be acting unlawfully, which is why if they only allow set amounts if a user can show otherwise in the form of receipts etc. for legitimate DRE they do have to allow it.

I appreciate it's shortage of funding from Central Government however Councils still have to act lawfully.

I think a separate WRO dept is a luxury these days round here anyway.

We have always used disability benefits to charge for care here prior to fairer charging we used to charge 1/2 AA or DLA care rate unless on low DLA care then no charge.

As we have then since 2003 always assessed DRE expenditure separate we may appear fairer than others with a blanket policy but it still doesn't always feel fair.

If clients need outings etc this could be in the care provided we put money in budgets for alsorts including gym memberships, swimming, Internet costs, activity holidays, holidays abroad, social time out etc so these things get covered in a roundabout way for clients who want these things I guess.

You've just got to remember that costs to the client should be over and above an average cost for a dre. Therefore I wouldn't expect to have my pint in a pub bought for me and I could there myself, so a disabled person should pay for their own pint but they would have to have help to get there perhaps someone to stay with them, we would at that point look at giving a social activity and/ or a supervision dre to acknowledge there may be a cost in buying the helper a drink.

We also have other support services for free which deal more with helping bills to get paid for rent and maintaining tenancys, helping with post, home from hospital support, enablement support etc

I am not aware we leave anyone short as we have a debt WRO who can go out and help sort out debt problems among other things. As wros if we are aware someone would struggle with a charge we would request a panel to look at this and ask them to agree to free or reduced charges, so I am surprised yours is regularly leaving people short.:(
To be honest though most here would be short due to debts and loans rather than disability expenses then the dilemma is should we not get paid for care while a doorstep lender is paid!!

cattermole

onlygoingforward wrote: »

I think a separate WRO dept is a luxury these days round here anyway.

We have always used disability benefits to charge for care here prior to fairer charging we used to charge 1/2 AA or DLA care rate unless on low DLA care then no charge.

As we have then since 2003 always assessed DRE expenditure separate we may appear fairer than others with a blanket policy but it still doesn't always feel fair.

If clients need outings etc this could be in the care provided we put money in budgets for alsorts including gym memberships, swimming, Internet costs, activity holidays, holidays abroad, social time out etc so these things get covered in a roundabout way for clients who want these things I guess.

You've just got to remember that costs to the client should be over and above an average cost for a dre. Therefore I wouldn't expect to have my pint in a pub bought for me and I could there myself, so a disabled person should pay for their own pint but they would have to have help to get there perhaps someone to stay with them, we would at that point look at giving a social activity and/ or a supervision dre to acknowledge there may be a cost in buying the helper a drink.

We also have other support services for free which deal more with helping bills to get paid for rent and maintaining tenancys, helping with post, home from hospital support, enablement support etc

I am not aware we leave anyone short as we have a debt WRO who can go out and help sort out debt problems among other things. As wros if we are aware someone would struggle with a charge we would request a panel to look at this and ask them to agree to free or reduced charges, so I am surprised yours is regularly leaving people short.:(
To be honest though most here would be short due to debts and loans rather than disability expenses then the dilemma is should we not get paid for care while a doorstep lender is paid!!

I understand all of that I don't think you are quite understanding what I'm saying about my Authority.

They take 1/2 DLA and 1/2 AA and ALL SDP across the board with no assessment of DRE at all end of. That is not legal.

You are wrong about Guidance it does have to be adhered to by the LA. Yes there is some flexibility there is no flexibility to not assess or allow any DRE if you use disability benefits as income when charging. If the LA next to you pulled all DRE and charged on Disability Benefits to users with no other income then they are also acting unlawfully.

There is case law to back it up as well, the Courts accept that because the Guidance is handed down in law i.e. Section 7 referred to above that Local Authorities cannot blatantly ignore said guidance and do there own thing, otherwise there is no point in having laws in the first place.

Anyway you will have absolutely no choice but to do it come April because it will be in regulations, no Authority will.

SandraScarlett

I'm amazed how many postcode lotteries exist in the Care System. If I'm reading Nanny correctly, the most anybody pays for care in her area, which I'm assuming is non-residential, is about £35 a week. My DH was paying over 4 times that!!


A friend in Leeds can get incontinence pads or pants provided for her DH. In London, you can only get pads. I had to fight tooth and nail, and threaten to appeal to the Court of Human Rights to get pants supplied for my DH, and yet they wee the same, wherever they live.


Alzheimer's Disease is still classed as a social situation, rather than an illness, with regards to who pays what regarding residential care costs. I know the Money Cake can't be sliced any thinner, and if this Act can do away with the anomalies, that'll be great, but there's always going to be areas open to interpretation.


xx

onlygoingforward

cattermole wrote: »

They take 1/2 DLA and 1/2 AA and ALL SDP across the board with no assessment of DRE at all end of. That is not legal.

Sorry yes ( think the penny has dropped) that would make it less than IS plus 25%.
As your maximum charge prior to any DRE for someone on basic PCGC and AA for example would be £148.35 + £61.10 + £54.45 - £185.44 = £78.46 max charge before DRES (and housing costs).

But yours would be a charge of £61.10 + £27.22 = £88.32 per week which leaves your buffer at only £175.58 therefore £9.86 short of the IS plus 25%. So you are quite right.

Regard should be paid to the effect of any charge on a user’s net income;
net incomes should not be reduced below defined basic levels of Income Support or the Guarantee Credit of Pension Credit, plus 25%. Charging policies which reduce users’ net incomes below these defined basic levels are not acceptable and undermine policies for social inclusion
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208323/Fairer_Charging_Guidance_final_2013-06-20_rc.pdf


Just not used to another council charging higher than us, as most who come here tells us how little they paid for care before moving to our area.

nannytone_2

SandraScarlett wrote: »

I'm amazed how many postcode lotteries exist in the Care System. If I'm reading Nanny correctly, the most anybody pays for care in her area, which I'm assuming is non-residential, is about £35 a week. My DH was paying over 4 times that!!


A friend in Leeds can get incontinence pads or pants provided for her DH. In London, you can only get pads. I had to fight tooth and nail, and threaten to appeal to the Court of Human Rights to get pants supplied for my DH, and yet they wee the same, wherever they live.


Alzheimer's Disease is still classed as a social situation, rather than an illness, with regards to who pays what regarding residential care costs. I know the Money Cake can't be sliced any thinner, and if this Act can do away with the anomalies, that'll be great, but there's always going to be areas open to interpretation.


xx

youre reading it right.
unless you have savings above 16k the MOST anyone is asked to contribute it £142 a month regardless of services provided.
if i received 1 hours help a week it would cost the same as my 25 hours cost.
it only went up this month from £106