There's been a thread before about the Human Rights Act and how residents in private care homes are not covered by it, however there is a story on the BBC website today updating this. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/6599155.stm
Human Rights Act and residents in private care homes: an update
- Thread starter DeborahBlythe
- Start date
I was looking at that myself just before. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I wonder why they want to evict the resident anyway? Important case regardless of the reasons of course.
That's a good point Lila and it did occur to me also. We were reluctant to move my mum from her first care home but one of the reasons we did is because of this. However, without knowing all the facts of this particular case, it's difficult to make an informed comment. Also, given the fact that it is such a high profile case, anyone who tried to somehow enforce the 'eviction' of the resident would be on very shakey ground and would find it hard to explain their actions.
According to this http://alexanderharris.co.uk/article/Human_Rights_Act_Residents_of_Private_Care_Homes_3047.asp
"The care home has been seeking to evict YL because of an alleged irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship between YL's family and the care home management. The care home accepts that it is able to appropriately meet YL's needs and that the relationship with YL personally has not broken down. "
Goodness knows what that means.
"The care home has been seeking to evict YL because of an alleged irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship between YL's family and the care home management. The care home accepts that it is able to appropriately meet YL's needs and that the relationship with YL personally has not broken down. "
Goodness knows what that means.
I now have a different view about Care Homes and their ability to look after people with any form of Dementia.
My mum now lives with us amd I will try to keep it that way for as long as possible.
It is a full time job making sure all her needs are met, this means there have been some changes to our family, as a whole.
As Care Homes do not have a one on one system, I can now see how difficult it must be for those paople employed to this kind of work. Espacially if there is a shortage of staff.
People with this kind of ILLNESS need MORE care than if it was a physical ailment.
If families work together with these Care Homes, surely eveyone would benefit.
It is don to the staffing, time and of course costs.
I was brought up to treat people as I would like to be treat, wspecially those who rely on others for their care.
Not everyone affords the luxury of a loving, caring family, are they the ones who get less care as there is no-one to stand in their corner.
I hope if and when, as I know this is a possibility in the future my mum has to go into a Home, I will try my best to be understanding and helpul.
It's easy to critisise, but understanding comes from experience.
Take care, Bye for now
Janetruth x
My mum now lives with us amd I will try to keep it that way for as long as possible.
It is a full time job making sure all her needs are met, this means there have been some changes to our family, as a whole.
As Care Homes do not have a one on one system, I can now see how difficult it must be for those paople employed to this kind of work. Espacially if there is a shortage of staff.
People with this kind of ILLNESS need MORE care than if it was a physical ailment.
If families work together with these Care Homes, surely eveyone would benefit.
It is don to the staffing, time and of course costs.
I was brought up to treat people as I would like to be treat, wspecially those who rely on others for their care.
Not everyone affords the luxury of a loving, caring family, are they the ones who get less care as there is no-one to stand in their corner.
I hope if and when, as I know this is a possibility in the future my mum has to go into a Home, I will try my best to be understanding and helpul.
It's easy to critisise, but understanding comes from experience.
Take care, Bye for now
Janetruth x
Stephen Johnson
Registered User
A couple of other links to the story:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/longtermcare/story/0,,2068639,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/longtermcare/story/0,,2069034,00.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1727669.ece
Kind Regards,
Stephen (Johnson).
http://society.guardian.co.uk/longtermcare/story/0,,2068639,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/longtermcare/story/0,,2069034,00.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1727669.ece
Kind Regards,
Stephen (Johnson).
Eviction notice
I asked my mothers care home manager questions relating to the national care standards.
She gave me an eviction notice for my mother at the private residential EMI home.
I got the Inspection services involved and also the social services, although as my mother is privately funded the social services at first did not what to know.
All was resolved, and my mother is still at the home, but I find I can not make comments as I would be given another eviction notice.
It is to say the least shameful that people in residential/nursing EMI homes have no right of abode.
Yours fraternally
Chris E
I asked my mothers care home manager questions relating to the national care standards.
She gave me an eviction notice for my mother at the private residential EMI home.
I got the Inspection services involved and also the social services, although as my mother is privately funded the social services at first did not what to know.
All was resolved, and my mother is still at the home, but I find I can not make comments as I would be given another eviction notice.
It is to say the least shameful that people in residential/nursing EMI homes have no right of abode.
Yours fraternally
Chris E
Really sorry about your mother. Mine was evicted on the basis that the home couldn't meet her nursing needs. In fact there were many other residents who had similar, if not more intense needs than my mother and the eviction was really something the home had been angling for over a number of months, refusing to accept her back from hospital etc even when deemed by professionals to be suitable for EMI residential.
I blame myself partly for her previous eviction because I was quite persistent in checking on her care. It was me they wanted to be shot of, not her really. I was never rude or out of hand, alway polite and constructive even when sorely provoked and despairing, I thought, but I think the home could not cope with someone keeping so close an eye on them. They were looking for the first opportunity to get rid of her and they did so.
I now feel as if I must bend over backwards not to upset the current home, and that isn't in my mother's best interests either. I don't feel I have any choice however. The trauma of moving her again would be intolerable, but it means that I let things slip which really ought to be picked up on. I 'm treading on eggshells the whole time. I've learnt a bitter lesson and I don't know what the answer is.
I don't actually think the HRA issue will make a whole lot of difference to self-funded residents as I tend to think that there are already a lot of structures: care standards, registration requirements, inspectors around which are supposed to protect all residents of care homes whether self-funded or subsidised and the fear of eviction and lack of alternatives dampens the will to protest, not the absence of HRA provisions. The reality is, I believe, that there is a shortage of care home places which means that a) the inspection services do not impose rigid penalities on home owners because closing homes causes upheaval which cannot easily be managed, and b) relatives know that there isn't much out there by way of alternatives, so they don't complain or rally the inspectors, let alone think about legal action. Even with the Human Rights Act extended ( if that happens) the owners still have the upper hand whilst the market is in their favour. Very few relatives will want to go to the expense and trauma of taking legal action based on their newly found rights because the alternatives are so thin on the ground. Care homes can now and will still be able to argue all sorts of mitigation over evictions and less than impressive care standards, because they know that they still corner a not very competitive market. Sorry to be a wet blanket.
That's my humble view anyway. Others may disagree.
I blame myself partly for her previous eviction because I was quite persistent in checking on her care. It was me they wanted to be shot of, not her really. I was never rude or out of hand, alway polite and constructive even when sorely provoked and despairing, I thought, but I think the home could not cope with someone keeping so close an eye on them. They were looking for the first opportunity to get rid of her and they did so.
I now feel as if I must bend over backwards not to upset the current home, and that isn't in my mother's best interests either. I don't feel I have any choice however. The trauma of moving her again would be intolerable, but it means that I let things slip which really ought to be picked up on. I 'm treading on eggshells the whole time. I've learnt a bitter lesson and I don't know what the answer is.
I don't actually think the HRA issue will make a whole lot of difference to self-funded residents as I tend to think that there are already a lot of structures: care standards, registration requirements, inspectors around which are supposed to protect all residents of care homes whether self-funded or subsidised and the fear of eviction and lack of alternatives dampens the will to protest, not the absence of HRA provisions. The reality is, I believe, that there is a shortage of care home places which means that a) the inspection services do not impose rigid penalities on home owners because closing homes causes upheaval which cannot easily be managed, and b) relatives know that there isn't much out there by way of alternatives, so they don't complain or rally the inspectors, let alone think about legal action. Even with the Human Rights Act extended ( if that happens) the owners still have the upper hand whilst the market is in their favour. Very few relatives will want to go to the expense and trauma of taking legal action based on their newly found rights because the alternatives are so thin on the ground. Care homes can now and will still be able to argue all sorts of mitigation over evictions and less than impressive care standards, because they know that they still corner a not very competitive market. Sorry to be a wet blanket.
That's my humble view anyway. Others may disagree.
Last edited:
I agree with you Deborah. In fact I will go further and say that it will make NO difference to privately funded residents, even if the case is decided in her favour. This is because the Law Lords are only looking at the issue from the point of view of whether the payment of public funds makes the care home, in effect a public authority and thus under the jurisdiction of the HRA. If she wasn't funded by her LA, it wouldn't have got this far.
Jennifer
Jennifer
Recent Threads
-
-
-
Council Tax Disregard - some advice please
- Latest: Javangreenmagpie
-
-
-
-
