social care charges for younger disabled people

sarahjd22

Hi.

I require social care as I have cerebral palsy, so it is a lifelong need. I am not currently employed, but have been in the past as since leaving university early to accept a job offer.  I am undertaking a level 5 professional qualification funded by the housing association who I rent my bungalow from.

A social worker has just told me that the costs of books and other non course fees won't be considered in my imminent social care financial assessment.  

I was quite alarmed by this as there appeared little acknowledgement that disabled people actually want to make something of themselves, and that this situation is lifelong, so my bank account and outgoings will always be for the scrutiny of others. 

Because of this, a number of questions come to mind: 

• As the government appear to want disabled people to be in employment, can this social care charging be seen as a cap on social mobility?  
• Can social care charging be seen as double taxation on the grounds of disability?  
• If I get a job, will the additional income be swallowed up by additional social care charging?  
• Can this situation be challenged via The United Nations Human Rights Committee?
• Does the new £86,000 cap on lifetime social care contributions take into account previous charges paid from the age of 18?

If anybody could answer my questions, I would be extremely grateful!  

Thanks, 
Sarah 

sarahjd22

PS. When I say "younger disabled people", I mean not elderly people.  This group appear to be who the media are focusing on, rather than also mentioning adults from the age of 18 who have disabilities such as cerebral palsy, spina bifida, Downs Syndrome etc.

As these are lifelong disabilities, and many disabled people are in employment, I don't think this issue gets enough air time.  

What happens for example if you are working and saving for a deposit on a house?  Anything over £16k in your bank account means that you have to pay the full cost of your social care.  

This is particularly annoying when people who are not disabled require repeated treatment because of hobby related injuries, or repeated A&E care because of alcohol. Surely they should face a minimum charge of £200 for each self inflicted need for NHS care?

They are lifestyle choices, a lifelong disability is not a lifestyle choice.  

Successive governments have been too good at keeping people down.

Sarah

deannagone

I think supporting charges for any kind of hospital care is a very dangerous move, I am cynical but I am certain that once that barrier was broken, it would mean an end to free hospital care. 

Made worse by saying there should be judgment on how the need for A&E care was incurred.  Trying to charge someone with repeated A&E attendance for inebriation - do you know how many drunks are rich enough to make such an attempt worthwhile? When I worked as a nurse in A&E, they were usually homeless, so impoverished. Say I injure myself decorating (forced to do this because the council gave me a badly decorated property including textured walls), using a tool etc.., does that count as a hobby?  Accidents are called accidents, not an 'on purpose'. I'm not sure how many people who do hobbies and injure themselves once, are going to do the same thing again. So not sure 'repeated' accidents are as common as you think.  I imagine there would be some that could say people who attempt to suicide more than once (after all its a self inflicted injury) should have the status of their mental health ignored and be charged as well.

Are you saying that social care should not be chargeable so disabled people can save up to buy a place to live?  How would they prove their savings were for this purpose?

Again, are you saying if educating themselves, a disabled person should not be charged for social care?

Your study is already paid for so how would being charged for social care affect your education?

I could be incorrect, but the 'examination of bank accounts' required for my son's social care was only one instance of sending bank statements. Its not an always.  Its an income dependent 'benefit' (having social care paid for or asking for a contribution from yourself) so you have to expect an assessment of finances.

Spoonie_Turtle

deannagone said:

I think supporting charges for any kind of hospital care is a very dangerous move, I am cynical but I am certain that once that barrier was broken, it would mean an end to free hospital care. 

Made worse by saying there should be judgment on how the need for A&E care was incurred.  Trying to charge someone with repeated A&E attendance for inebriation - do you know how many drunks are rich enough to make such an attempt worthwhile? When I worked as a nurse in A&E, they were usually homeless, so impoverished. Say I injure myself decorating (forced to do this because the council gave me a badly decorated property including textured walls), using a tool etc.., does that count as a hobby?  Accidents are called accidents, not an 'on purpose'. I'm not sure how many people who do hobbies and injure themselves once, are going to do the same thing again. So not sure 'repeated' accidents are as common as you think.  I imagine there would be some that could say people who attempt to suicide more than once (after all its a self inflicted injury) should have the status of their mental health ignored and be charged as well.

And even when there are repeated accidents, they are usually due to medical conditions (often undiagnosed) anyway.


It's very troubling to see a disabled person (the OP) suggesting there should be some moral distinction between deserving and undeserving.  Out of all the different sections of society, having been on the wrong end of that kind of thinking, surely we know better by now!  This kind of thinking would open the door to disabled people being scrutinised, only allowed to live the kind of life deemed acceptable by the government, only able to access help if we are deemed morally virtuous and not simply by reason of having basic human needs just like everyone else. 

We already see this thinking in society with regard to poor people ('how dare they have a TV and a phone and still need help at the taxpayers' expense!!!') and certain parts of society are up in arms if someone on benefits dare save up enough to be able to go on holiday once every few years.  It's this thinking that leads to abject poverty as we see in the US, where poor people are literally asked if they have any possessions worth selling before accessing help, where disabled people are not allowed more than $2000 to their name (and in some states that includes assets such as cars) to be eligible for help.  Very, very troubling indeed.



As to the original education issue, depending on the institution they may have some sort of grant or bursary for disabled people - but those are usually for the extra costs caused by disability when trying to study, not for the costs every student will have such as books and course materials.  That's supposed to be paid from one's income, and if the disabled person cannot work, they can apply for income-replacement benefits (now mainly UC) which is a concession for disability.  Nondisabled students can only apply if they have children, again recognising that their circumstances make it difficult to work to earn the income needed to support themselves.

There are indeed gaps in state provision, the system is not fit for purpose, and the government is certainly not known for its magnanimous attitude towards the lower classes and disabled people.  But the answer CANNOT be to take help from other people who also need it.  Making it about morally deserving/undeserving aligns scarily close to the mentality of those who decide to cut help for the most vulnerable in our society.

donnaloves

Hi I'm sorry to hear your issues.
I am my daughters appointee, she has Global development delay, speech impediment, mild prada willis and other issues. She is 24. I am having issues over her charges. She is left with £147 a week to eat and pay bills. Which is apparently the minimum income guarantee. There is nothing left for any other help that she requires. just for attending a group 3 times a week. It's appalling.
I am currently going to the Social care ombudsman.

To answer to some of your questions.
The council will not allow any costs you pay out for courses books etc as they are available to the wider public, so not classed as essential to your disability.

If you were to get a job, none of that income would be included in your financial assessment. However and this is the complicated bit and very disturbing, any savings that arise from your wages "Could be taken into account as savings"

Adults that are born with a disability are basically not allowed to have anything to make their life's happier. As its all available to the wider public.

It makes me cry, it hurts to think my daughter, unless i fund it, has nothing for any fun things she likes to do.
I will add we live in a village. She cannot travel on public transport alone, cannot go shopping alone etc.

She has basically got to just "exist" in the eye's of the council!
 

williewonder

I'm fortunate as I have bee sectioned so get 117 aftercare which means I don't have to pay anything towards my care. The people I live with do and care costs are most of their PIP at £400 a month in costs. If they take section 117 aftercare away I'll be screwed and I will refuse care which will lead me into long term hopsitaltion under section.

[Deleted User]

sarahjd22 said:

Hi.

I require social care as I have cerebral palsy, so it is a lifelong need. I am not currently employed, but have been in the past as since leaving university early to accept a job offer.  I am undertaking a level 5 professional qualification funded by the housing association who I rent my bungalow from.

A social worker has just told me that the costs of books and other non course fees won't be considered in my imminent social care financial assessment.  

I was quite alarmed by this as there appeared little acknowledgement that disabled people actually want to make something of themselves, and that this situation is lifelong, so my bank account and outgoings will always be for the scrutiny of others. 

Because of this, a number of questions come to mind: 

• As the government appear to want disabled people to be in employment, can this social care charging be seen as a cap on social mobility?  
• Can social care charging be seen as double taxation on the grounds of disability?  
• If I get a job, will the additional income be swallowed up by additional social care charging?  
• Can this situation be challenged via The United Nations Human Rights Committee?
• Does the new £86,000 cap on lifetime social care contributions take into account previous charges paid from the age of 18?

If anybody could answer my questions, I would be extremely grateful!  

Thanks, 
Sarah 

I believe that the £86,000 cao (which will affect everyone) is not going to be backdated - but will start from when the ruling is made

https://www.hughjames.com/blog/what-does-the-86000-cost-cap-actually-mean

I am concerned how the value of my house will affect my wife who will still be living there - should I have to go into care

elsien

williewonder said:

I'm fortunate as I have bee sectioned so get 117 aftercare which means I don't have to pay anything towards my care. The people I live with do and care costs are most of their PIP at £400 a month in costs. If they take section 117 aftercare away I'll be screwed and I will refuse care which will lead me into long term hopsitaltion under section.

117 aftercare doesn't always negate the need to pay towards care costs. The 117 is specifically around mental health and some people on 117 are split funded between health and social care and have to make a contribution towards the social care side of things if they also have needs that are not mental health related.   

To the OP, our system is broken. We have an aging population and not enough resources to cover current need. Paying towards care is not double taxation, it's what has to happen so the care threshold doesn't keep going up and up and leaving more people who need help not getting it.  Including older people  - everyone who needs social care should be considered equally, whatever the reason.