Council selling child's house to pay for care.

elsien

SunReader wrote: »

This doesn't go far and any extra funding for live-in care will need to be found by other means.

I may be missing something, but is that not the definition of a self funder? That within certain limits they pay for their care themselves?

SunReader

That's just what I thought, but not the case. There is certain level of care that must be provided irrespective of means.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/Pages/direct-payments-personal-budgets.aspx


Strangely enough, for a 'self funder' in a care home a charging order can be put on a house (provided there is sufficient equity) for 1k a week care home, interest free and fees will be paid in full - minus any DSS benefits. But for any surplus over and above the approx £470 a week budget for live-in care must be found by other means, often equity release unless the family can chip in.

This obligation of LA's to fund live in home care non-means tested up to a certain limit is not well known about, and you won't be advised this by any box ticking, target hungry, bonus collecting social worker.

With any vulnerable adult or child social services will take control, both for safeguarding, but less obviously as a means of preserving budgets.

In recent case law where an old man had been kidnapped out of his house by social services against his wishes, the judge commented that 'Deprivation of Liberty' is a safeguard for the patient, not a tool for imprisoning them.
Given the vested interests that both care home management and social services have, no wonder best interest assesments recommending residential care homes are often skewed for 'self funders'

My point is, for Op it is a double edged sword, no money makes gives both protection and vulnerability.

elsien

But they are funding up to a certain limit. But that limit doesn't include full time care at home because that's just not affordable. I recall my grandmother (who had capacity) looking into this to fund more than 3 visits a day, but at the point she needed double ups for mobility the amounts became silly and it wasn't realistic in the longer term.
If you're suggesting budgets are ignored to fund people to have 24 hour care at home, with an increasingly ageing population, where would you suggest the money comes from to pay for it?

SunReader

Precisely - and there is the rub.

Live-in-homecare - realistically not 24/7 but nearer to 29/7 to allow for breaks and holiday rates is ruinously expensive, think £1500 a week plus.

It is an extra lever to put an OAP into a full time care home - just what they want as it removes their (limited) obligations whilst also reducing their care costs.

I would suggest that funding for care would be provided for live-in care in the same way as residential, via a charge on the house. Discriminating between the two just green lights any coercion by LA social workers to find the cheapest residential option (for them)

Sorry but I had to endure over 2 years of Mum's constant protestations that she wanted to live back at home, it was torture for me and I fought the system tooth and nail for 18 months - and ultimately mum's declining health lost the battle.