• All threads and posts regarding Coronavirus COVID-19 can now be found in our new area specifically for Coronavirus COVID-19 discussion.

    You can directly access this area >here<.

can anyone on here understand this nonsense?


Registered User
Sep 13, 2012
The new care Act! Can you understand the following paragraph?

"Where a carer has eligible support needs of their own, and the council is meeting the needs of a carer by providing a service directly to a carer, it now has the power to charge the carer. Where a LA takes the decision to charge a carer, it must do so in accordance with the non residential charging rules. It is proposed that the Council will charge carers the full cost for the service they receive subject to a financial assessment."

What the b*****day hell does this mean.
If carer is receiving care themselves they wouldn't be a carer. If they mean a carer is getting help from the LA to carry out their caring role ie getting agency carers in to help, they are going to charge them and not the cared for. This all sounds bonkers to me. I for one couldn't afford it having given up work to care for Mum as a lot of carers have had to do.

I'd like others slant on what on earth this paragraph means in plain English please?



Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
I think it's not uncommon, particularly for older people, for a carer to have care needs themselves. For example you might have a couple where one person has dementia and the other has physical frailties.

Having said that, I believe that the paragraph in question also refers to non-infirm family carers who have had a care assessment and that assessment has shown them to have needs to carry out their caring duties. If the LA directly provides for those needs, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that the person should be charged for that if they can afford it.

However, I don't think this would apply in the situation you describe (carers coming into care for the person being cared for). That would still be charged (potentially) to the person being cared for. Where it gets iffy is if the service is only to benefit the carer and who makes that determination? Respite for example. Is that for the carer or is it for the person being cared for? Logic would seem to dictate that it's for the carer, but of course, without respite, many family carers would have to throw in the towel much earlier.

To say it's all a bit up in the air at the moment would be an understatement.

Sue J

Registered User
Dec 9, 2009
I have care needs but also support, care for a dementia sufferer whose needs have never been recognisedby the system, there's a surprise:rolleyes:.

Don't understand all the jargon about charging the carer etc. more red tape and bureaucracy being generated no doubt.


Registered User
Oct 5, 2013
I may about to be entering this minefield! Respite, in my case was to benefit both of us. Me, cos I couldn't cope any more, and unbeknown to me was because I was/am ill. OH, cos he was locked into a bad temper, you're not my wife mode. Two days after respite has finished, I am feeling much better via-a-vis OH, his temperament has vastly improved. Now his coughing is over, and his bladder reunited with his brain, life is much better. I know hospital brings on all types of problems, but care homes?!


Registered User
Oct 25, 2014
If I was was you I would go to
to Age UK

Sent from my iPhone using Talking Point
Last edited by a moderator:


Registered User
Aug 29, 2008
I have neighbours, both were given attendance allowance. Each of them provided the care for the other. No outside agencies were involved!


Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
I think it's suggesting that the carer packages, for which a carer has been assessed and had money granted towards the provision of their stated requirement of support...
of which I have never taken advantage of or received myself...
where some people get vouchers to spas, gyms, etc.
can be charged for that service on the same basis that my son, who receives day care and has a congenital disability, no income other than DLA and ESA...has to pay toward the cost of his care.

After a financial assessment, if the service is still required, carers MAY have to contribute towards the cost of the provision of that service.

Seems fair enough to me since my son has no choice in whether or not he has a disability, no chance to have earned a wage... yet he still has to pay.