The council want to move my Dad

[penguin629]

Hi
I haven't posted on here for a while as things with my dad seemed sorted and he's settled. But something happened today, something cruel 2 days before Christmas, which is going to be hard enough without the threat of this. I need advice whether this has happened to anyone else (I'm sure it has) and what we can do to protect my Dad.

Basically my Dad is 67 years old and has AD. He lives at a purpose built dementia unit (2 years now) and is well settled. He was sectioned and is still under section 117 so his care is provided for by the local council. He was assessed spring this year and they decided his care should no longer be funded by the primary care trust but the council. He was again assessed a couple of months later and my mum said she smelt a rat. She received a letter dated mid-Nov that the council would pay his funding. No where in it did it mention top-up.

Today they ring my Mum and say they're only willing to pay say, £500 and if she wants him to stay there she has to fork out £700 a month. This NH charges more than others in our area. If not, then they want him moved to another home. They told her they'd only be willing to pay till 6 jan so that hasn't given her a lot of time. She met with the SW but he couldn't answer any questions so she spoke to someone else later and he said they pay for 30 beds at the NH and if one comes available Dad will go on a list.

She's contacting Age Concern tomorrow as this was recommended to her and naturally we're going to appeal. Our council is obviously looking to make cuts and as my Mum owns her own home and receives my dad's pension, maybe they think she can afford it. She wants him to stay there and will use his pension to fund it. She is so upset and this in turn upsets me.

Is there anything we can do? Are we likely to win? Is this something that goes on alot? The man from the council said in exceptional circumstances they'd pay. Is this one?

Sorry this is a long message but any help would be great.

Thanks you
Joanne

 

[Grannie G]

Hello Joanne

I doubt anyone can give you a definite answer but can I suggest you phone the helpline tomorrow.

0845 300 0336
December
Monday 20 - Thursday 23: 9am - 5pm.
Friday 24: 9am - 1pm.
Saturday 25: Closed

Monday 27 & Tuesday 28 : Closed

Wednesday 29 - Friday 31: 9am - 5pm.

 

[other]

if your father is still under s.117 then this needs to be revoked before they can charge you anything.

S.117 means aftercare, which means that your care is free of charge until it is decided otherwise (following an MDT and official assessment). The decision to place someone under s.117 is not taken lightly and is often seen as a sign that the person requires ongoing support. Aftercare under S.117 is seen as recompense for having been detained against ones will. Once under s.117 it is quite hard (but not impossible) to not be under it for that reason.

If your father is still under s.117 which you have stated he is, then it is unlawful for anyone other than the PCT or social services to pay for his care costs (See the MH act). If there has been a multi disciplinary team meeting held to decide that he is not then you should have been invited to it, and if there was, and you weren't, you have every right to politely request a copy of the minutes from that meeting. Contact your local Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) and ask them about it.

 

[Sandy]

Hi Joanne,

You might want to look at the Alzheimer's Society's factsheet on The Mental Health Act:

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=117

Section 117 - After-care services
Local authorities have a duty to make arrangements for the continuing care and support of someone who has previously been detained under section 3 of the MHA. This support is not means-tested. It must be provided free of charge and includes paying for care home fees.

Sometimes, people cease to be eligible for after-care support under section 117 and have to start paying for their own care. Local ombudsmen have emphasised the need for local authorities to be careful in their approach to removing such after-care where their motivations are mainly financial. The view of the courts is generally that as long as the mental health problems persist, the person should remain eligible for after-care, even if they are taken off that section while they are in hospital.

Also MIND has a good factsheet on this:

http://www.mind.org.uk/help/rights_and_legislation/aftercare_under_section_117_of_the_mental_health_act

If your father is still under the Section 117, it seems that there should be no call to fund any part of his care. Just out of curiosity, has SS ever made any assessment of his finances or suggested taking part of his pension to pay for his care?

Now what may be happening is a situation similar to NHS Continuing Healthcare (NHS CC) where the NHS pays all the costs associated with someone's care. The problem with NHS CC is that the NHS has to provide care that meets all the person's needs (including things covered by the Human Rights act - like a right to family life - relevant when considering travel distances).

It is not usual to ask for top-ups in the case of NHS CC, as the NHS has to meet all their assessed needs. However, if the family want the person to have 'extras' that such as a bigger room or things like hairdressing services - those can be paid for out of private funds.

So I would ask the following questions:

1) Is your father still under the Section 117?

2) If not, why not? Normally, as long as the underlying need/condition is still present, the Section 117 should still apply.

3) If the move is only being proposed to save money, then you have to muster arguments that your father's health will be compromised by a move at this stage. This could be because the other home can not offer the same level of care (which may or may not be difficult to prove) and also the move would cause a serious breach in the continuity of your father's care.

Take care,

 

[other]

Hi Joanne,


So I would ask the following questions:

1) Is your father still under the Section 117?

2) If not, why not? Normally, as long as the underlying need/condition is still present, the Section 117 should still apply.

3) If the move is only being proposed to save money, then you have to muster arguments that your father's health will be compromised by a move at this stage. This could be because the other home can not offer the same level of care (which may or may not be difficult to prove) and also the move would cause a serious breach in the continuity of your father's care.

Take care,

I agree with all of the above, its what I was trying to say but much clearer!

 

[penguin629]

Fight goes on

Hi

Thanks for all your replies. Let me clarify the now situation. My Dad is still under the s117. He was being funded by the CHC but after being assessed twice last year his funding was swapped to the local authority who told my Mum that they will still pay for my Dad but only so much and if she wants him to stay at his current NH then she will have to contribute £700 a month. At the moment the LA don't have my Dad's state pension. She doesnt object to contributing but in order to keep him there she'd been forfeiting that amount of her income. The LA will fund him until Feb/March. They want to move him to a cheaper NH. And one with a shocking reputation. My Nan was at this NH and my Mum is adamant Dad is not going there.

Age UK have told her to write an emotive letter stating why Dad shouldn't be moved. We are working on that now. If that doesn't work then to write a letter of complaint.

He is so settled and content where he is. He knows his way around and has a good relationship with the staff. It's a purpose built unit but charges more than the LA want to pay.

My Mum is beside herself. She's so upset and it's so hard to watch. As if things arent bad enough. The nurse at the NH say they wont kick Dad out but they will if they arent getting the money.

Also there are no beds at this other home. LA want him to go out the area which isn't ideal either.

I know we should be lucky he is having some funding but I fear for his well-being.

Jo