Care Assessment and Attendance Allowance

Danday

50Twuncle wrote: »

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.

Don't make me laugh. I have a good friend who happens to be the leader of a conservative council in another county and receives over £100,000 a year - his position as are all of the councillors that form the cabinet paid a damn good salary + expenses.
As for CEO's in the council, they too earn a lot more than the PM does.

lisyloo

Danday wrote: »

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

I am talking about getting carers to visit at home.
You are talking about care homes.

I have real calcs for MIL & FIL that some might find useful (but not where I am located now).

lisyloo

Danday wrote: »

.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?

I think you are Incorrect. Let me explain with example.
MIL pension is £80 and made up to min of £160 with pension credit.
LA say he only has to pay for home care at £300 per week, so she doesnt pay.
Lets say she applies for AA and now gets £160+£85 AA = £245.
She STILL doesnt pay and gets to keep ALL the benefit.

So for anyone who can;t afford to pay for their own care, they get to keep ALL or some of it.


1) So < £215 income you keep ALL AA
2) Between £215 & £300 you keep SOME AA
3) > £300 they get all of it but it reduces your contribution by £85

So there is ALWAYS an incentive.

Workd examples
1) other income £200, limit £300 - you keep £85
2) other income £250 , you pay £35 keep £50
3) other income £350 (£435 with AA), care costs £105, you pay £20 and has reduced your contribution by £85.

I think the point your missing is that even if they take it ALL (as in 3), it will reduce your contribution.
What scenario is there where there isnt an incentive please?

Keep_pedalling

Danday wrote: »

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.

DLA and AA are targeted at people who need the payments to help pay for care. When they are in their own homes they can choose how to spend that. Once in residential they have all their needs provided for so I can’t why you are you think it unfair that benefits that are designed to support you care need should be allowed to be diverted to their use.

If you are not self funded then AA will stop being paid, self funders still get it which will reduce the amount of savings they have to use each week, so it does protect the residents wealth to a small degree.

lisyloo

I think there is some cross purposes between AA when in a care home and AA when you are getting care at home. In post #34 Im referring to receiving care at home.

If in a care home and LA funded you dont get it (but you dont have any expenses for people to attend you).
If self-funding you get it to help you pay for the people to attend you (in the care home).

Please specify the scenario when there is NO incentive.

lisyloo

Danday wrote: »

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.

Not true (see scenario 1).
Are you labouring under some misapprehension about how the calculations actually work?

Happy to share 2 real examples when I get my hands on them.

Ames

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.

How much extra council tax would you be prepared to pay to cover that?

AA/PIP/DLA are for the extra costs associated with illness or disability. Of course they should be used to pay carers rather than expecting the council to foot the bill. Otherwise you'd be almost literally having your cake and eating it!

Danday

lisyloo wrote: »

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

I don't dispute that they need more money. But there are ways that they can do that without resorting to threats that care provision will be witheld/restricted if the ill/disabled person does not claim money from the DWP in order that it can then be handed over 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.

Do you not mean the councils and the NHS? Any deficit is not the responsibility of the ill or disabled person.That responsibility lies entirely with the government. Don't make the individual a scapegoat in this.

What's your evidence for that opinion?

The assessment as to whether someone should contribute towards their care is said to be based on the level of assets held and their current income. No where does it say that the claimant has to make as many claims as possible for a welfare benefit and if no claim is made then care provision will be refused.

They could pursue the claimant.

I doubt it. What do you think they will do? put a gun at their head?

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

Do you have any evidence that they receive the right amount of income?

Danday

lisyloo wrote: »

I think you are Incorrect. Let me explain with example.
MIL pension is £80 and made up to min of £160 with pension credit.
LA say he only has to pay for home care at £300 per week, so she doesnt pay.
Lets say she applies for AA and now gets £160+£85 AA = £245.
She STILL doesnt pay and gets to keep ALL the benefit.

So for anyone who can;t afford to pay for their own care, they get to keep ALL or some of it.


1) So < £215 income you keep ALL AA
2) Between £215 & £300 you keep SOME AA
3) > £300 they get all of it but it reduces your contribution by £85

So there is ALWAYS an incentive.

Workd examples
1) other income £200, limit £300 - you keep £85
2) other income £250 , you pay £35 keep £50
3) other income £350 (£435 with AA), care costs £105, you pay £20 and has reduced your contribution by £85.

I think the point your missing is that even if they take it ALL (as in 3), it will reduce your contribution.
What scenario is there where there isnt an incentive please?

I will refer you back to the original post - your reply refers to entirely different situation.

Danday

Ames wrote: »

How much extra council tax would you be prepared to pay to cover that?

AA/PIP/DLA are for the extra costs associated with illness or disability. Of course they should be used to pay carers rather than expecting the council to foot the bill. Otherwise you'd be almost literally having your cake and eating it!

I don't pay any council tax. as I receive a 100% deduction due to claiming Pension Credit.
The council would still foot the bill if you didn't claim DLA/PIP/AA. They can't expect you to contribute if you don't have the money.