Any Live In Carers

suki1964

whambam wrote: »

So, what your saying is the law to live on only applies to certain benefits and not an individual circumstances?

Look, I used to claim carers allowance for living with and caring for my step father

His allowances paid for the upkeep of the home, his food, petrol, car, blah blah blah

The £62 as it was then, was paid into my pocket for my own personal spends, clothes, make up etc - pocket money

Oh, plus my stamp was paid so my pension wasn't affected for those years

Seriously tell me you are giving a complete 35 hours a week care? You are physically working for those 35 hrs? Cos mostly that's not true. If you are cooking a meal for yourself ( you do have to eat) are you saying that time is solely to cook for the person who wants care? You drive them into town, you are saying you aren't using the same trip to get your own messages? Night time care, you mean you aren't sleeping as well until you are called?

Yes I was on "call" for a lot more then 35 hours, but did I solely work for him for 35 hours? Nope

Before carers allowance came about , it was done for no reward. You say about child benefit, back in the day it was family allowance and paid for the first child only.

whambam

_shel wrote: »

That's what PIP or DLA is for along with direct payments if they qualify. It is for them to choose what care they want and pay for it.

Yes, however the councils cannot use that as a reason for them not to pay out for care needs as their are new regulations in place that people have the right to an assessment of needs regardless of what their income or benefits, savings are.

sportsarb wrote: »

You are the one who dropped the '~£105 the law says you need to live on' figure in to things. I'm presuming that you got that figure from somewhere, and that it isn't just coincidence that it comes close to the £109.10 figure that people in receipt on an income related benefit are entitled to, other than benefit law I'm not sure that it is laid down anywhere else in law that there is a prescribed minimum amount that people are entitled to.

In any case, why would a carer not claim all benefits that are available to them? It makes no logical sense to claim Carers Allowance but not claim other benefits that are available. The only reason someone could have for not claiming the other benefits is that they are sure they would not be entitled because there is another income involved or there are savings involved.

I got the figure from the DWP letters. They mention its law but if you question them further its inaccurate it's a regulation.

What if they are only entitled to 1 benefit according to their circumstances. The question originally was about have 1 benefit nothing extra carers allowance itself.

theoretica wrote: »

The lower of those figures, yes. Because they are from residential care.


So take off cost of a room £100 pw (from student living costs) and prepared food £50 leaves at most £200pw actually for care, and all paperwork, management, income tax and NI that in family care is unlikely to have.

A disabled person on benefits alone no way can pay for care costs. They would have to borrow money or sell their home.

[Deleted User]

whambam wrote: »

Yes, however the councils cannot use that as a reason for them not to pay out for care needs as their are new regulations in place that people have the right to an assessment of needs regardless of what their income or benefits, savings are.



I got the figure from the DWP letters. They mention its law but if you question them further its inaccurate it's a regulation.

What if they are only entitled to 1 benefit according to their circumstances. The question originally was about have 1 benefit nothing extra carers allowance itself.



A disabled person on benefits alone no way can pay for care costs. They would have to borrow money or sell their home.

A right to assessment is not a right to receive money or services, that is decided by council and government policy and they can be asked to pay towards such and only critical needs have to be met.

You can read a piece of policy and assume what it means. You need read he actual laws and policy and be able to understand them whitch you obviously don't.

whambam

_shel wrote: »

A right to assessment is not a right to receive money or services, that is decided by council and government policy and they can be asked to pay towards such and only critical needs have to be met.

You can read a piece of policy and assume what it means. You need read he actual laws and policy and be able to understand them whitch you obviously don't.

Yes, we make a contribution as many do they are capped by law.

What law are you referring to that I don't understand?

lisyloo

whambam wrote: »

A disabled person on benefits alone no way can pay for care costs. They would have to borrow money or sell their home.

If someone qualifies they can get £85 attendance allowance for people to attend (to do shopping, laundry, cleaning etc).
They can get community meals if they are unable to cook.
If someone looks after them that person can get carers allowance.

If they need carers to attend at home then social services will do an assessment.
In my experience (done it twice) if they have less than £300 income per week then they won’t have to pay for carers to attend. They will only have to pay if they have a higher income. Their home is not included.

Care at home is free in this country if they need it.

Are you taking about carers visiting them at home or residential/nursing care.
If they go into a care home a their home is empty then yes they have to sell it.
Do you think tax payers should pay whilst it stands empty?

whambam

lisyloo wrote: »

If someone qualifies they can get £85 attendance allowance for people to attend (to do shopping, laundry, cleaning etc).
They can get community meals if they are unable to cook.
If someone looks after them that person can get carers allowance.

If they need carers to attend at home then social services will do an assessment.
In my experience (done it twice) if they have less than £300 income per week then they won’t have to pay for carers to attend. They will only have to pay if they have a higher income. Their home is not included.

Care at home is free in this country if they need it.

Are you taking about carers visiting them at home or residential/nursing care.
If they go into a care home a their home is empty then yes they have to sell it.
Do you think tax payers should pay whilst it stands empty?

Attendance allowance is only for over 65's unfortunately people after 45 or 50 are being diagnosed with serious illnesses and can hardly walk your even seeing youngsters on wheelchairs increase unfortunately.

Interesting, not heard about community meals have heard of community food banks and shared fridges at events.

Yes, I know about carers allowance.

Do, private carers go into nursing homes? Isn't that the nurses job to care or do they only deal with medication?

What if they don't want to sell their home its there asset they want to leave to their children or in their will as they have worked all their lives for it?

I'm not in favour for the house to be empty its can be let out.

lisyloo

No private carers do not go into nursing/residential homes.

You either get care at home which goes up to a max of 4 x 1 hour visits.
Once you get beyond that point e.g. are at danger of falling or setting fire to the place, then it’s residential or nursing depending on needs and all care is provided within the care facility. The nursing element is paid for by the NHS if you have medical needs.
If you are paying privately you can do what you want, but if you are local authority funded then you’ll only go into a care home as a last resort because it’s quite expensive.

If you have assets above £23.5k then you need to pay fo your personal care. If you want to leave your home to your kids then you need to financially plan for both, but currently no you cannot keep your asssets and expect other people (taxpayers) to pay for your care.

Letting a property would not raise a sufficient amount to pay for the care.
For example the flat I just sold might raise £200 per week but the fees are £925.
Plus it’s highly unlikely the person in the nursing home is able to take on the responsibilities of being a landlord. People are usually in a bad way by the time they enter a residential/nursing home as they have exceeded what can be done for them at home in 4 visits a day.

Personally I don’t think taxpayers should expect others to pay for their care e.g. younger people who can’t adford to buy a home.

I think you disagree which is your right, but the law is that you have to pay above £23.5k if the home is empty (not if your spouse is living in it).

I have just sold a property for this reason and whilst it was for sale the local authority provided a loan for the care fees which was settled when the property was sold.

You have the right to different opinions, but I’d ask you to think whether it fair for young families to pay for this whilst their grandma is hoarding empty property.

My views are not biased in my own interest as I’m currently losing an inheritance to care fees, but I’d rather my relative paid for her own care than other younger tax payers who are struggling to buy a home or raise a family.

Michtay

My personal experience was, a close family member can be paid from direct payments on an employed basis for caring for a relative, even if they are part of the same household.
In my case, my mother in law aged 92 was in hospital and bed blocking. After an assessment of needs, it was decided that she needed 2 carers for 4 hours per day for care needs and another 4 hours per week for social care, or a place in a dementia nursing home. She had no assets and her only income was her pension, a small amount of pension credit and attendance allowance. There was no suitable nursing home within the area who were willing to take her, there was no home care agency who could supply the carers needed to cover her care plan. We managed to find one carer who could cover 4 x 1 hours per day Monday to Friday and an agency who could supply 1 carer for the 1 hour visits at weekends. Social services knew that up to her going in hospital, I had been caring for her as well as working shifts 40 hrs per week. They approached me and asked if I would be prepared to hand my notice in at work and become the + 1 carer and be paid from her direct payments. I would be earning less money but wouldn't have the commute and the petrol expenses so it would even out. She was only expected to live for a few more months so I agreed.
My employer allowed me to finish the week at work without giving the 4 weeks notice and told me there would be a job for me in the future if I wanted it.
As it turned out, she lived another 8 months, and died peacefully in her own bed being cared for by someone she loved and trusted (she thought I was her mother).
She did have a daughter who only visited a couple of times in the last 8 months but refused to even help her mother have a drink when she was thirsty because "that's what carers are for". I think she would have fainted if I ever asked her to help me change or bathe her.

whambam

Michtay wrote: »

My personal experience was, a close family member can be paid from direct payments on an employed basis for caring for a relative, even if they are part of the same household.
In my case, my mother in law aged 92 was in hospital and bed blocking. After an assessment of needs, it was decided that she needed 2 carers for 4 hours per day for care needs and another 4 hours per week for social care, or a place in a dementia nursing home. She had no assets and her only income was her pension, a small amount of pension credit and attendance allowance. There was no suitable nursing home within the area who were willing to take her, there was no home care agency who could supply the carers needed to cover her care plan. We managed to find one carer who could cover 4 x 1 hours per day Monday to Friday and an agency who could supply 1 carer for the 1 hour visits at weekends. Social services knew that up to her going in hospital, I had been caring for her as well as working shifts 40 hrs per week. They approached me and asked if I would be prepared to hand my notice in at work and become the + 1 carer and be paid from her direct payments. I would be earning less money but wouldn't have the commute and the petrol expenses so it would even out. She was only expected to live for a few more months so I agreed.
My employer allowed me to finish the week at work without giving the 4 weeks notice and told me there would be a job for me in the future if I wanted it.
As it turned out, she lived another 8 months, and died peacefully in her own bed being cared for by someone she loved and trusted (she thought I was her mother).
She did have a daughter who only visited a couple of times in the last 8 months but refused to even help her mother have a drink when she was thirsty because "that's what carers are for". I think she would have fainted if I ever asked her to help me change or bathe her.

A good example of how social services should to act. I am surprised they asked you to be the paid carer and hand your notice in they usually don't like family members and usually force you into private care against your will.

Was it social services or NHS continuing healthcare that recommended you to be the paid carer?

I also met a family that there father who gets direct payments for 2 children who live in the same household he has guardianship court order. So, it can be done despite social services saying its not allowed its in the care act 2014 under employing a family member.