Hi all I’m new here. My mum was put in a care home for assessment following a fall at home during covid. She clearly had cognitive impairment and it was best for her to stay. The local authority paid her fees as I didn’t have deputyship to pay them on her behalf. I have now repaid the local authority and the care home has now billed me direct for her care and will continue to do so for the foreseeable but £1597.19 a month more than they charged the local authority. I have received contracts from them showing the amount that the local authority paid but nothing to show mum should pay more. Are they allowed to charge self paying residents more?
Care home fees
- Thread starter Jane Marie 1
- Start date
Did the LA charge you interest on the amount they paid. And if so was it interest their care home rate or the self funding rate?
Yes, there's an LA block book rate and a (usually much higher) self or family funded rate.
Agree to everything, but sign nothing as the expression goes, it's a game of "patients poker" they have a Duty of Care, you do it for love, put your best poker face on and see what happens.
K
Agree to everything, but sign nothing as the expression goes, it's a game of "patients poker" they have a Duty of Care, you do it for love, put your best poker face on and see what happens.
K
I saw some minutes of meetings online for a local council where they had a team project to identify all the people they were paying care home fees and to pursue Continuing Health Care assessments.
Yes, they can and they do. My mother had to pay £200 per week more than the LA-funded lady in the identical room next door. The CH manager freely admitted that self-funding residents are subsidising LA-funded residents because the council pay less than it costs.
So not only had my poor mother worked hard all her life and paid taxes, she had to fund every penny of her own care AND subsidise the care of the woman next door too. Is this fair? No, it bl***y well isn't! Can you do anything about it? No.
As with all things high prices don’t always mean quality. Also the rating system is not fit for purpose. My mums home is rated as needing improvement but the care is second to none, prior to that she was in a home rated good and I felt some of the care and cleaning left a lot to be desired.
Hi all, I could really get on my soapbox over the injustice of self funders being charged more for care homes. I'm surprised that age UK and all the dementia charities don't challenge this as 'financial abuse of vulnerable people.'Yes, they can and they do. My mother had to pay £200 per week more than the LA-funded lady in the identical room next door. The CH manager freely admitted that self-funding residents are subsidising LA-funded residents because the council pay less than it costs.
So not only had my poor mother worked hard all her life and paid taxes, she had to fund every penny of her own care AND subsidise the care of the woman next door too. Is this fair? No, it bl***y well isn't! Can you do anything about it? No.
As carers we seem programmed not to complain about cost as we want the best care for our loved ones and to discuss the cost seems ugly.
As someone who holds LPA for a loved ,one I have to work in their best interest, and rightly so, but I do find the care home fee situation quite disgusting.
I do wish the Alzheimer's Society would challenge this 'abuse.' as I see it.
Sorry,rant over.
Being charged more for a care home when self-funding does have the effect of diminishing assets at a faster rate than would be the case with lower fees. While this seems unfair (and maybe is) it does mean that one will be self-funding for a shorter period as, when the asset value falls below the £23,250 threshold, Local Authority funding will commence. Paying lower fees would mean self-funding for longer as the threshold would not be reached as quickly.
I can see that point but surely the longer they pay for themselves the better? Also,should they pass before exhausting their funds then there is the chance that their wish to leave people money in their will can be fulfilled. And no, I don't know what's in my LO will but I do think they deserve the chance to have those wishes granted. Two tier care costs just don't sit fair with me. It is taking an unfair advantage of a vulnerable person who can't speak for themselves. I can't think of any other service where someone is charged more for the same thing just because they have more money .
Last edited:
Surely meeting their own needs comes before there wishes to leave Gt Neph a few quid?
That entirely depends how much money the person has! My mother didn't run out of money so she paid every penny of her care till she died. This was mostly because she had a good pension (from years of working) plus my dad's pension so enough income to offset a good part of her fees each year.
I might add that she continued to pay tax on this income.
Seems unfair? Maybe it is? There is no maybe!
My mother had enough to pay for her care and I fully accept that's 'how it should be'. I do not see why she should have had to pay £200 per week extra to also subsidise council funded residents. She'd paid tax all her working life and was continuing to pay tax till she died. Isn't that supposed to cover the cost of care for those who can't afford to pay themselves? Why did mum have to pay twice over?
I completely agree.
I hadn't considered the situation where assets were unlikely to ever reduce to the funding threshold but was basing my previous comment on my wife's situation. In her case, after about 20 months her self-funding stopped because her assets were then below the £23,250 threshold.
During her time as a self-funder I never thought about her paying a rate above what the Local Authority paid, nor to consider whether other residents were being 'subsidised' by her. This may have been because the self-funding rate for her care home was significantly less than that charged by some other self-styled 'luxury' homes (which in my view were less suited to her needs). This meant that the transition from self-funding was made easier because her home accepts the Local Authority rate without any top up.
If I had thought about it, I might have considered that any differential between the self-funded and Local Authority rates is a reflection of the Council's funding limits and bargaining power to 'bulk buy' on behalf of those residents without the means to pay the costs themselves. The unfairness in the system lies in the very notion that costs of being cared for are payable in full or in part (subject to their means) by those in need of dementia care.
During her time as a self-funder I never thought about her paying a rate above what the Local Authority paid, nor to consider whether other residents were being 'subsidised' by her. This may have been because the self-funding rate for her care home was significantly less than that charged by some other self-styled 'luxury' homes (which in my view were less suited to her needs). This meant that the transition from self-funding was made easier because her home accepts the Local Authority rate without any top up.
If I had thought about it, I might have considered that any differential between the self-funded and Local Authority rates is a reflection of the Council's funding limits and bargaining power to 'bulk buy' on behalf of those residents without the means to pay the costs themselves. The unfairness in the system lies in the very notion that costs of being cared for are payable in full or in part (subject to their means) by those in need of dementia care.
Last edited:
And they are probably only able to do that because they charge self-funders more.
I wouldn't imagine many 'luxury' homes accept council funded residents because they want 2K per week, not the £600 or whatever the council are prepared to pay. I doubt many families could afford to pay a top up for those sums. I chose mum's care home based on the excellent 'all stages till the end' care they offered not the pretty curtains.
I think due to the fact that homes routinely charge top-ups may make the difference in fees paid by self and LA funders slightly less. Still not fair because it's a third-party who is making up the shortfall due to the unrealistic amount the LA is prepared to pay. It's the system that's wrong not the person in the room next door.
Similar threads
