If care homes are charging £1k+ per week and carers are paid minimum wage, where is the money going?

Exodi

68ComebackSpecial said:

Exodi said:

68ComebackSpecial said:

Except the person you are quoting didn't pay £1500 per week - they paid 60% of that.

You're contradicting yourself... you've argued my point as more valid because the profiteering described by Pennylane was achieved at a lower amount per week?........

Her evidence of "profiteering" amounts solely to the fact that the owner drives a Range Rover and holidays in India. What were the annual profits for the home? The dividends paid? The director's emoluments? Those would be facts as opposed to assumptions.

That is, as you are obviously aware, impossible to know - we can only go on what has been said. Conversely, there is no reason to think that, given what has been said, the care home is not profitable.

If, as you ask, these forums required company accounts, dividends breakdowns and detailed salary information before being able to comment on something, then I don't think much discussion would happen?

tooldle

Exodi said:

Pennylane said:

Every few weeks they gave me a bill for about £20 for “toiletries” which I know for a fact they did not provide and when asked they could not itemise them.   That was a great scam and most families just paid up but I provided Mum’s items which no way cost £20.

Meantime the owner drove round in a brand new Range Rover and dressed in designer clothes and shoes. She and her  Manager used to go off on holiday to India and leave unqualified young girls in charge of 25 residents with just one member of staff on duty overnight.

I could write a book about that place and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect good food, a comfortable bed and some home comforts for £900 a week.

A breath of fresh air in a thread that has been dominated by people ignoring profiteering as an element to the dicussion, instead insisting that care homes are left with no choice but to charge £1500+ per resident per week to be able to afford their minimum wage staff.

Maybe, but equally there are a lot of assumptions in the post. Brand new Range Rover, bought from excessive profits, or provided on lease? Equally a gift from a husband, family inheritance etc etc. Lots of possible explanations.
Sandwiches for tea are pretty common, as most places I've visited have the main meal at lunchtime. 
Food from the Cash and Carry would be quite normal (I would think), unless a wholesaler delivers directly. From what the poster said, it seems a smallish facility with a low number of residents.
Food portions are small. Again, quite normal. Little and often is often the mantra with food available at all times to anyone who is hungry.

It may indeed be the case that this particular home was scrimping whilst taking 'huge' profits but, if that is your belief, why place your relative there in the first place. These things would surely have been obvious when checking the place out in the first instance.

Pollycat

Exodi said:

Malthusian said:

Why it is appropriate for the sister's needs to be moved somewhere "half the price" as the brother wants, when she can afford to live where she is now, has not been specified. (We are told that she is "not mentally capable" and has been in and out of hospital due to falls.) Nor does the BBC specify who would benefit financially from that decision.

The brother appears to want the house to be kept so "neighbours and friends could visit" but it is not in his sister's interests for her friends to stay in her house for free so they don't have to pay for a hotel / B&B, while she is transferred to somewhere with a lower standard of care to pay for their free hotel.

We don't know that staying there is neccessarily the preferred outcome for her either. Perhaps she previously would not have wanted her lifetimes wealth squandered on a 'Ritz'-level care home, denying their children and childrens children any inheritance. Conversely, as you rightfully argue, it is a conflict of interest that potential beneficiaries may be happy to see them in the cheapest accomodation possible to preserve their inheritance.

Unfortunately this is probably just one of the myriad of challenges faced if a PoA isn't assigned before losing mental capability.

Inheritance doesn't exist until someone dies.
It does not belong to any children or grandchildren.
It is not a right.

If my Mum had a choice, I'm sure she would love to leave some money for her children and grandchildren.

But I and my sister would prefer for her to be in a safe, secure environment, well looked after and pay for it rather than rub our hands with glee at the value of our "inheritance" as she died in a home similar to the one described by Pennylane.

Exodi

Pollycat said:

Inheritance doesn't exist until someone dies.
It does not belong to any children or grandchildren.
It is not a right.

If my Mum had a choice, I'm sure she would love to leave some money for her children and grandchildren.

But I and my sister would prefer for her to be in a safe, secure environment, well looked after and pay for it rather than rub our hands with glee at the value of our "inheritance" as she died in a home similar to the one described by Pennylane.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, please don't think I'm suggesting that's what she should have done - quite the opposite, I'm also firmly of the opinion that inheritance isn't a god-given right and personally, I don't expect (nor am likely to receive) any form of inheritance in the future.

My point was that people, like your mum, may have made the personal choice to stay in sub-optimal conditions for selfless reasons. I think Malthusian concisely sums this up with her last post about PoA which I also agree with.

The BBC article I linked is probably a red herring; my original question was less about 'should they pay £X,XXX per week to stay in a care-home' and more 'why are they being charged £X,XXX per week in the first place'?

castle96

I am confused as to what "Social care costs" are and/or, how much the % of the total costs (rest being "residential") are. Please

tooldle

castle96 said:

I am confused as to what "Social care costs" are and/or, how much the % of the total costs (rest being "residential") are. Please

I'm assuming 2/3, 1/3 split based on info i read some years ago, with the greater portion being the care cost. However, if the person was receiving care 24/7  in their own home it would be different and possibly more expensive overall. 

Keep_pedalling

Exodi said:

Pennylane said:

Every few weeks they gave me a bill for about £20 for “toiletries” which I know for a fact they did not provide and when asked they could not itemise them.   That was a great scam and most families just paid up but I provided Mum’s items which no way cost £20.

Meantime the owner drove round in a brand new Range Rover and dressed in designer clothes and shoes. She and her  Manager used to go off on holiday to India and leave unqualified young girls in charge of 25 residents with just one member of staff on duty overnight.

I could write a book about that place and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect good food, a comfortable bed and some home comforts for £900 a week.

A breath of fresh air in a thread that has been dominated by people ignoring profiteering as an element to the dicussion, instead insisting that care homes are left with no choice but to charge £1500+ per resident per week to be able to afford their minimum wage staff.

If care homes are so profitable, could you explain why so many have closed down in recent years?

Sandtree

Exodi said:

I'm not convinced on the overheads justification, as you don't see Premier Inn charging £1500 a week, yet they will have loosely similar overheads.

Our local premier inn for next week would be £726, that excludes any food or drinks, people to cook and serve food, cleaners (rooms are not currently being services), nurses, carers, the extra records needed for social care, any social area big enough to cover all residents.

The overheads are nothing like a care/nursing home. 

[Deleted User]

But not every care home pays minimum wage? Who gets a care qualification which all these homes now have to get staff undertaking and if so dissatisfied in their £8.91 per hour job doesn't better themselves? 

Whilst this is a 'not for profit' care home group, I don't see any £8.91 in this link
Competitive Wages
Across all of the roles we offer, our wages are very competitive. And as you develop and progress your career, you’ll always get the pay increase you deserve.
https://apply.anchorhanover.org.uk/vacancies/page/1/#results
https://www.anchorhanover.org.uk/careers/why-join-us/our-rewards-and-benefits

castle96

castle96 said:

I am confused as to what "Social care costs" are and/or, how much the % of the total costs (rest being "residential") are. Please

I'm assuming 2/3, 1/3 split based on info i read some years ago, with the greater portion being the care cost. However, if the person was receiving care 24/7  in their own home it would be different and possibly more expensive overall. "

SURELY somewhere it is set down, or peeps on here know from experience?? A lot of articles just talk about "care costs"