• 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<.

Essex County Council S117 cuts

Jesskle66

Registered User
Jul 5, 2014
99
I have been informed by post that essex county council is proposing to make savings to s117 care by charging those in residential care £230 per week for accusation and food. As far as I'm concerned it totally changes the goalposts. It does say that it will be means tested but how can someone who lacks capacity complete any form accurately? It just seems that they don't care about the most vulnerable in society. Ironically I looked up.the expenses of the councillor in charge of making this proposal and he received £45,000 for one year. And one of the expenses? FOOD!!!
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
4,771
Salford
I would think this would get challenged in court and I don't see it could be allowed to happen.
K
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
19,934
North Manchester
I suspect that separating out medical care and 'hotel costs' for those being funded where there is no financial assessment (s117 and CHC) may well be in the offing.

The principle of separation was part of the now dormant (deceased?) part two of the 2014 care act.

With s117 funding the 'hotel costs' can be funded by a top up.

With CHC it is not as clear, top ups are only lawful for 'additional services totally unrelated to the individual’s primary health needs'.

If the meals provided/class of accommodation are in excess of those dictated by the individual's primary health needs and if the CCG's finance section together with the home's accountants are creative a top up may be agreed.
 

2jays

Registered User
Jun 4, 2010
11,598
West Midlands
How do the people that are "creative" with the accounting sleep at night after making their non decisions for s117 or CHC

Very cosy I guess because it's not their family member who is affected by their decisions.....

Wondering how many of those who make the decisions actually have any hands on personal experience....


Sent from my iPhone using Talking Point
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
19,934
North Manchester
Restricting reply to CHC, I have no personal knowledge of s117.

Creative accountancy can be beneficial.

Consider a case where the CCG will pay £x.

All homes accepting £x are considered unsuitable by person involved and/or their relative(s). This assumes that there are homes within y miles that will accept £x, don't forget that CHC implies some form of high needs.

They are prepared to pay a top up.

Enabling this top up keeps the, potentially self funding if no CHC, person happy and frees up a placement at £x.

A win win situation.

This is not speculation, I know that locally it is happening.
 

Jesskle66

Registered User
Jul 5, 2014
99
I am astounded by the hypocrisy of a county councillor who received £45,000 in a year for his expenses to write me a letter saying that the council can 'no longer afford to be as generous' for those who are under s117. My mum was under section 2 and 3 in hospital and has lost mental capacity. Who is going to fill in the means testing forms? Me? A social worker? What if there is no POA or deputy ship in place? And as someone with extremely high nursing needs she is involuntarily in a nursing home. As nice as her nursing home is, 'hotel' it ain't. How can any human think it is correct to charge the weakest in society for something which he claims on expenses and is paid for by the taxpayer? I am so angry.
 

Beetroot

Registered User
Aug 19, 2015
362
I am astounded by the hypocrisy of a county councillor who received £45,000 in a year for his expenses to write me a letter saying that the council can 'no longer afford to be as generous' for those who are under s117. My mum was under section 2 and 3 in hospital and has lost mental capacity. ......
Ask the local paper to ask him. It's outrageous.

what gets right up my nose here is the way it's put, "...as generous". I would be astonished if it were ever "generous". To say the way he's put it is infelicitous, is an understatement.
 

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
I am astounded by the hypocrisy of a county councillor who received £45,000 in a year for his expenses to write me a letter saying that the council can 'no longer afford to be as generous' for those who are under s117. My mum was under section 2 and 3 in hospital and has lost mental capacity. Who is going to fill in the means testing forms? Me? A social worker? What if there is no POA or deputy ship in place? And as someone with extremely high nursing needs she is involuntarily in a nursing home. As nice as her nursing home is, 'hotel' it ain't. How can any human think it is correct to charge the weakest in society for something which he claims on expenses and is paid for by the taxpayer? I am so angry.
I totally agree with your sentiments on the councillors expenses.

However I have to disagree on your overall point of accommodation charges and means testing.

My Mom, along with thousands of others, is in a NH. She has no capacity due to VasD and many other ailments and a Financial Assessment was painlessly carried out on her with my help. She has to pay all her state pension, private pension and benefits to help pay for her care. I see nothing wrong with using state benefits in this way and agreed with the paying "hotel" costs that the CA2014 was supposed to bring in this year but has now been deferred.

The cost that you quote of £230/week is in most circumstances in line with basis state pension and AA combined.

I do have objections to the use of private pensions and the very low thresholds for capital that is included.

I cannot see a reason that those on S117 or CHC and who are in receipt of state pension/benefits should not contribute that to the cost but am honestly open to hear why it should not.

For those that do not yet receive state pension then the threshold for contributions should be way higher than now.

I would also like to see "hotel" costs introduced for Hospital admissions but how to work out how much or after how long it should start is well beyond my skill set and unfortunately has to be left to those who can claim extravagant expenses.:(
 
Last edited:

Pickles53

Registered User
Feb 25, 2014
2,474
Radcliffe on Trent
Pete R I agree with your comments. It seems reasonable that wherever a person is living, they should make some contribution to the 'non-medical'costs at least using state pension etc.

Family members who work in NHS finance say the 'hotel' costs of a night in hospital are approx £250. A hospital bed costs about £10,000 to buy.
 

Jesskle66

Registered User
Jul 5, 2014
99
I see your point Pete.R but I do feel that people who have been sectioned should be treated differently. She has been legally detained under the mental health act and now is under DoLs. If an inmate in prison isn't charged for 'hotel' expenses why should my mum be? At least they have made choices as to their actions which have lead them being detained but my mum is ill!
 

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
I see your point Pete.R but I do feel that people who have been sectioned should be treated differently. She has been legally detained under the mental health act and now is under DoLs. If an inmate in prison isn't charged for 'hotel' expenses why should my mum be? At least they have made choices as to their actions which have lead them being detained but my mum is ill!
Pensioner prisoners do not receive a state pension. They can get it reinstated just prior to release. Again if they have a certain amount of savings I see no reason why they should not contribute to their "hotel" costs.

:)
 

Jesskle66

Registered User
Jul 5, 2014
99
But that isn't being proposed. I'm sure it would take way too long to get that kind of legislation and suspect that they are doing this because it is much easier to achieve legally. I would have little issue with them doing that, but the fact remains that essex county councillors claimed £1.55 million pounds in expenses for the year 2015/2016 and try have just written to me to tell me that they cannot be 'as generous' to those in care. They don't seem to have a problem with how 'generous' their own expenses are.
 

allchange

Registered User
Nov 29, 2015
76
I think that Essex may be on a dodgy wicket if they are attempting this, assuming that nothing superceded the 2002 case. I can't post links so Google publications.parliament.uk/pa/Id200102/Idjudgmt/jd020725/sten-1.htm


PWD under S117 generally have less freedom than others, and from what I've observed are those that in the 70's would have been kept in secure institutions (hospitals?) such as Leavesden. Many have non organic psychiatric illnesses as well. Given this I can understand why statute does not charge them for their care. Undermining S117 will not help other PWD get the CHC that they deserve. A bit like final pay pensions closing does not help those in defined contribution schemes. A race to the bottom.
 

mrjelly

Registered User
Jul 23, 2012
314
West Sussex
...the fact remains that essex county councillors claimed £1.55 million pounds in expenses for the year 2015/2016 and try have just written to me to tell me that they cannot be 'as generous' to those in care. They don't seem to have a problem with how 'generous' their own expenses are.
In fairness to ECC, their total budget is of the order of £2,000 million including an Adult Social Care spend of £550 million. So if they cut their councillors allowances and expenses to zero it would only allow a less than 0.1% increase in other spending. And do we want to go back to the days when participation in public life was restricted to the independently wealthy?
 

Relm

Registered User
Jan 24, 2011
49
Understanding of S.117

Am I right to understand that Section 117 means that if a person with dementia is sectioned and subsequently detained in a care home then the cost of the care home will be met from an NHS fund? (Perhaps it's the NHS Continuing Care fund?)

Isn't this essentially a loophole of sorts because patients who do NOT get sectioned but nevertheless need to stay in a care home will have to pay the full cost of the home.
 

Jesskle66

Registered User
Jul 5, 2014
99
You may call it a loophole, however I wouldn't describe the hell of my then 84 year old mum being handcuffed by two policemen to get her into an ambulance to take her to a psychiatric hospital where it took 9 months to diagnose her a loophole.
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
4,771
Salford
I agree with Jess, when you end up in the back of a police van and held under section 3 like my wife was 6 months then it's not like there was a choice but to section her.
The reason it exists is that back in the early 190's the government let the local authorities close the then NHS hospitals for the old and the infirmed.
There are circumstance where the NHS still has to pay for certain people's care, so the PWD is assessed by a team and if they say there is no possibility that the PWD could ever be discharged then they have to pay for the care.
It's not a loophole it's a safety net, you can't tell someone they have to go into care, no choice, then tell them that they have to pay too.
The normal rules apply, the LA only has to offer one place and anything better is a top up, so the position isn't really any different to someone below the savings limit where the LA pays as well.
K
 

Relm

Registered User
Jan 24, 2011
49
There are circumstance where the NHS still has to pay for certain people's care, so the PWD is assessed by a team and if they say there is no possibility that the PWD could ever be discharged then they have to pay for the care.

It's not a loophole it's a safety net, you can't tell someone they have to go into care, no choice, then tell them that they have to pay too.

The normal rules apply, the LA only has to offer one place and anything better is a top up, so the position isn't really any different to someone below the savings limit where the LA pays as well. K
Suppose a PWD attends an assessment voluntarily and it is determined it would be unsafe for them to live alone and therefore they need to live in a care home. Presumably this PWD would now have to meet all their care home fees?

The PWD in that example could be just as ill as someone else who gets sectioned to have an assessment. However one seems to get their fees paid and the other doesn't.

I think there's more to this than meets the eye and I am just trying to understand how this works. Any info would be useful.
 

Jesskle66

Registered User
Jul 5, 2014
99
I think you are underestimating how I'll someone has to be to be sectioned. There is absolutely no way my mum would have been able to attend anywhere voluntarily. She was psychotic and thought that everyone she encountered was trying to murder her. I cannot explain to you how at risk she was but also how at risk I was as her carer. She was violent and psychotic and my life was in danger. Sectioning is taken very very seriously as you are depriving someone of their liberty.