Four Seasons Healthcare likely to go into administration

[SnowWhite]

They have over 300 Care and nursing homes throughout the country many of which take people with dementia.

This could affect 17,000 residents.

I looked at one of their homes and wasn't impressed and then I was speaking to a woman I know and she introduced me to her partner who is a carer at one of their homes. He says he loves working with older people but gets really fed up as they are only allowed to spend five minutes with each resident. He said they are seriously understaffed and Underpaid.

Where on earth they are going to find homes for all these people is beyond me because in my area every single home has a waiting list.

 

[Kevinl]

It's not really news, if you look them up it's been coming for some considerable time now.
In order not to break any rules on here I won't say too much but if you goggle them you'll find the facts of their finances and can draw your own conclusions but it's a long standing issue.
The (originally Scottish) company has about 80% of its beds dedicated to nursing and high dependency so re-homing people in that category in that quantity won't be easy.
In 2011 when Southern Cross did go bump Four Seasons picked up over 100 of their homes and moved them over without too many problems to the staff and residents.
My wife's in a Four Seasons home, it's well staffed, they're well trained and very well motivated, I have no issues with the place at all. It is EMI nursing and they do take people with challenging behaviour and so it is a bit basic to look at but you don't have to be there for long to figure out why there's no carpets, plastic leather furniture and no glass ornaments.
If anything I would say it's over staffed usually there's 10 staff to 30 residents plus domestic staff, cleaners, maintenance staff, office staff and activity co-ordinator, sometime you can't move for the staff in there.
The group also has a much higher than average number of LA funded people so the problem for the LA if anything happens would be massive as they would have to find them new homes as well as technically being responsible for self funders if a home closes.
Put simply they're too big to fail but if they did what an excellent opportunity for the LA to take the homes back into public ownership. Pinch myself as I'm dreaming.
K

 

[Louise7]

Put simply they're too big to fail

Yes. From what I've read administration is unlikely.

 

[Pete R]

Where on earth they are going to find homes for all these people is beyond me because in my area every single home has a waiting list.

The residents are already in Care Homes so no new places needed.

 

[SnowWhite]

It's not really news, if you look them up it's been coming for some considerable time now.
In order not to break any rules on here I won't say too much but if you goggle them you'll find the facts of their finances and can draw your own conclusions but it's a long standing issue.
The (originally Scottish) company has about 80% of its beds dedicated to nursing and high dependency so re-homing people in that category in that quantity won't be easy.
In 2011 when Southern Cross did go bump Four Seasons picked up over 100 of their homes and moved them over without too many problems to the staff and residents.
My wife's in a Four Seasons home, it's well staffed, they're well trained and very well motivated, I have no issues with the place at all. It is EMI nursing and they do take people with challenging behaviour and so it is a bit basic to look at but you don't have to be there for long to figure out why there's no carpets, plastic leather furniture and no glass ornaments.
If anything I would say it's over staffed usually there's 10 staff to 30 residents plus domestic staff, cleaners, maintenance staff, office staff and activity co-ordinator, sometime you can't move for the staff in there.
The group also has a much higher than average number of LA funded people so the problem for the LA if anything happens would be massive as they would have to find them new homes as well as technically being responsible for self funders if a home closes.
Put simply they're too big to fail but if they did what an excellent opportunity for the LA to take the homes back into public ownership. Pinch myself as I'm dreaming.
K

it made most of the newspapers yesterday and it seems that administration is imminent. I do realise it's been discussed before but it was bigger news yesterday.

 

[SnowWhite]

The residents are already in Care Homes so no new places needed.

Assuming they can get people to take on these care homes that is.

 

[SnowWhite]

The Guardian, FT, Telegraph, Mail and regional newspapers are all reporting it.

 

[Pete R]

The Guardian, FT, Telegraph, Mail and regional newspapers are all reporting it.

They are also reporting this...........
https://www.theguardian.com/society...saved-from-collapse-after-deal-with-creditors
Who would have thought a deal would be done?

 

[jugglingmum]

The original report I saw read like many reports do when companies are in this position.

I don't think the deal done has anything to do with the industry, just the normal process that occurs in this situation.

KevinI comments about too big to fail may well be correct, but nothing to do with the number of beds and the care home industry, but to do with the amount of money owed, as the creditors will have decided they will get more money this way than letting them slide into administration.

The deal will have been negotiated as the best outcome for the creditors, as they ultimately make the decision to place a company into administration and appointing the administrators (regulated insolvency practitioners)

Administration as a process means that the management passes from the owners to insolvency/recovery practitioners, and in the short term the residents and staff would notice no actual change. The administrators will continue to trade as normal whilst they assess the situation, and ascertain how they are going to realise the assets, which in all likelihood would mean transferring homes to new owners.

When I saw the article (I think on the BBC website) I interpreted it as the normal 'noise' which surrounds these sort of deals as part of the negotiating process. Similar to the 'noise' in the press that surrounds the imminent sacking or retaining of a football manager.

 

[Pete R]

The original report I saw read like many reports do when companies are in this position.

I don't think the deal done has anything to do with the industry, just the normal process that occurs in this situation.

I agree with you and am not a fan of the scaremongering reading into this.

There is no way the creditors would want to go to adminstration as their overdue interests payments would be lost forever and the chances of getting the original loan repaid would be unlikely if you take into account that the majority of the CH's buildings are actually on lease so the total of assets would be quite low.

I think 25'ish of the CH's are actually quite profitable but I would guess they don't have many, or any at all, of LA funded residents.