Care Assessment and Attendance Allowance

lisyloo

To make the claim simply and only so that the Council can have it for themselves is, in my opinion, wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion but there are plenty of cases where one government department insists/demands you claim from another.

For example if your company goes into administration the DTI (or whatever it is now) will INSIST you sign on for benefits and will NOT make up the difference in your redundancy if you don't.

Accept you might not think it's morally right but we all have to obey the rules if we want to claim and in sme cases will be financially penalised if we don't.
If you want to do something about it then go through the democratic process i.e. write to your MP as I doubt anyone here can change it.

I'm not trying to justify it (in fact I've said somewhere it's nuts) but if you decide not to follow the rules you might get penalised.

lisyloo

Danday wrote: »

In which case there is no incentive for the claimant to even attempt to put in a half decent claim.

Morally I'd said it's a poor show if you want benefits but don't want to obey the rules. In some cases this may affect you financially.
If you want to TAKE from the welfare state then you should be prepared to do the admin required.
Playing devils advocate but if you object to the rules then why not pay your own way??

I agree the rules are nuts don't make APPEAR to make sense all the time.
There may be reasons that do make sense but aren't apparent to us.

Do also bear in mind that people's circumstances may change. For example my MIL is LA funded in a nursing home so doens't receive the AA directly, but if her husband dies or goes into nursing care (and she gets half a property) then she will become privately funded and get the AA direct.
If you don't help the state get the right benefits and then your circs change then that means they might be with-held from you. If you'd done something to damage your own case then some people might call that karma.

lisyloo

margaretclare wrote: »

Attendance Allowance is a very useful benefit because it is non-taxable and non-means-testable. It should therefore not be included in an income assessment.

I will check for you when I get home this weekend as I have the calcs at my home for MIL and FIL so I can say for definite (for our LA anyway), but do bear in mind that the "allowance" is generous for people with extra needs, so should take account of additional expenses. From memory it was around £300 per week which feel generous to me.

What I mean by that is - a single person is allowed £159.25 to live on but someone with extra needs is allowed to have £300 per week income before they have to start paying for care at home because it's recognised they have extra expenses.

50Twuncle

Danday wrote: »

Sorry but I don't understand that? What savings?
At the end of the day this is all about how can councils rake a bit more money in - be it car parking charges or anything else. In this case they have dreamt up a scheme that will enable them to get more money from the government through the back door by forcing the public to make a claim for benefits that will then be handed to the council. No consideration is being given to the public in this - the councils are saying - you want a care package - claim benefits for us. I doubt very much that this is in fact actually legal.
I do wonder if they have the right to refuse paying for a care package if the claimant refuses to make so a claim despite what the council is threatening.

Personally I don't care what the councils do, what I would say is that they should look to themselves first, the salaries, expenses etc that are paid to the senior staff and councillors.

You can't tar all councillors with the same brush as council staff - Most Councillors are not paid a salary - they are entitled to allowances and expenses to cover some of the costs of carrying out public duties. They are not council employees.

lisyloo

At the end of the day this is all about how can councils rake a bit more money in - be it car parking charges or anything else.

Councils are facing a demographic timebomb and you are correct that they need to raise more money themselves.

In this case they have dreamt up a scheme that will enable them to get more money from the government through the back door by forcing the public to make a claim for benefits that will then be handed to the council.

The DWP and NHS (if appropriate) have been making contributions for many years. Budgets are set on this basis, so if they don't get the conitbutions there are meant to then there is clearly going to be a deficit.

I doubt very much that this is in fact actually legal.

What's your evidence for that opinion?

I do wonder if they have the right to refuse paying for a care package if the claimant refuses to make so a claim

They could pursue the claimant.

Personally I don't care what the councils do, what I would say is that they should look to themselves first, the salaries, expenses etc that are paid to the senior staff and councillors.

Any evidence that they are overpaid for the responsibilities they have?

Keep_pedalling

Danday wrote: »

Sorry but I don't understand that? What savings?
At the end of the day this is all about how can councils rake a bit more money in - be it car parking charges or anything else. In this case they have dreamt up a scheme that will enable them to get more money from the government through the back door by forcing the public to make a claim for benefits that will then be handed to the council. No consideration is being given to the public in this - the councils are saying - you want a care package - claim benefits for us. I doubt very much that this is in fact actually legal.
I do wonder if they have the right to refuse paying for a care package if the claimant refuses to make so a claim despite what the council is threatening.

Personally I don't care what the councils do, what I would say is that they should look to themselves first, the salaries, expenses etc that are paid to the senior staff and councillors.

Only people who are self funding can claim AA, so self funders obviously have significant savings. The drain on those savings will be reduced a little if they are in receipt of AA.

Danday

margaretclare wrote: »

Attendance Allowance is a very useful benefit because it is non-taxable and non-means-testable. It should therefore not be included in an income assessment.

But apparently it is when councils look at what someone should pay towards their care. As in the case of this thread one poster has to hand over 75% of their DLA award.

Danday

For example if your company goes into administration the DTI (or whatever it is now) will INSIST you sign on for benefits and will NOT make up the difference in your redundancy if you don't.

I agree with you Lizi, in that example you will be entitled to keep the money you claim for. In the case of care costs, it is absolutely clear that you keep nothing - you will be required to hand it over to the council who pay for the care. If you don't get such an award be it PIP or AA the council will still cover the cost of the care. In other words there is no incentive to make the claim as financially you will never see the money.

Danday

lisyloo wrote: »

Morally I'd said it's a poor show if you want benefits but don't want to obey the rules. In some cases this may affect you financially.
If you want to TAKE from the welfare state then you should be prepared to do the admin required.
Playing devils advocate but if you object to the rules then why not pay your own way??

I agree the rules are nuts don't make APPEAR to make sense all the time.
There may be reasons that do make sense but aren't apparent to us.

Do also bear in mind that people's circumstances may change. For example my MIL is LA funded in a nursing home so doens't receive the AA directly, but if her husband dies or goes into nursing care (and she gets half a property) then she will become privately funded and get the AA direct.
If you don't help the state get the right benefits and then your circs change then that means they might be with-held from you. If you'd done something to damage your own case then some people might call that karma.

It's not about me wanting to take from the state. This is about how councils are forcing the elderly and sick into applying for a benefit so that the council alone will take it from the claimant The claimant will see nothing for the effort they put in to make the claim. Therefore there is no incentive for the claimant to make the claim in the first place.
Ironically the claimant would still get the same care with or without the claim for benefit being made. So why bother if you will not see any of the money.As a prime example your MIL does not see the benefit of her making that claim for AA - so why bother making it in the first place?
In your next example if she then aquired capital resources and had to pay for her own care of course she would see the money from her AA award. In that case she could make the AA claim then knowing that at least she would get something in return.
No one forces anyone to make a claim for benefits you have a choice. I could have made a claim years ago but chose not to do so until the time came when the extra money would come in handy.

Danday

lisyloo wrote: »

I will check for you when I get home this weekend as I have the calcs at my home for MIL and FIL so I can say for definite (for our LA anyway), but do bear in mind that the "allowance" is generous for people with extra needs, so should take account of additional expenses. From memory it was around £300 per week which feel generous to me.

What I mean by that is - a single person is allowed £159.25 to live on but someone with extra needs is allowed to have £300 per week income before they have to start paying for care at home because it's recognised they have extra expenses.

I think it is the other way round. You are allowed to keep £23 a week.