Fight The Bureaucracy - Phil Shakespeare's National Homes Swindle ~ View topic

Fight The Bureaucracy - Phil Shakespeare's National Homes Swindle Forum Index

FAQ Memberlist Usergroups
Contact Us Newsletters Awareness DVDs Useful Links Latest Posts Search

Author

Message

< Legal assistance ~ New Assessment Criteria

George

Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:35 am

Joined: 05 Aug 2006 Posts: 4 Location: Essex

I note that in the new discussion document issued by the Ministry, the requirements of the Grogan judgement seem to be overlooked, or even ignored. The judge required a specific ans SEPARATE assessment to be made of the Primary Health Need, which is distinct from the points system (which we know is slanted very strongly towards failure of the patient to meet full-funding).

I have raised this in a note to the originators of this discussion document.

Does anyone have any comments on this? I beleiev that ALL PCT and SHA are still operating outside Grogan, and as such ALL assessments still being made are not in conformity with the law. It would be very sueful to get a legal opinion on this, as this is a strong legal point from Grogan.

Google

Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:35 am

yvonne jones

Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:58 pm

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 9

I just wonder if it is possible to take a case to the european court if the rights of the elderly are being abused, ie right to health care from cradle to grave

Shaky

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:58 pm

Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 173 Location: Birmingham

"The judgment in Coughlan clearly establishes that where a person's primary need is for health care, and that is why they are placed in nursing home accommodation, the NHS is responsible for the full cost of the package. "

If this is the plain facts of the matters WHY are PCT's throughout England and Wales blatantly forcing the old and vunerable to sell their properties in such a cold hearted and mallicious way. It's got to stop and only media awareness can do this - I have had emails of support from all over this Country and the Panorama programmes have shocked people who simply can't believe this has, and has continued to be carried out in this fashion i.e. unlawfully for far TOO long - I want this to be a political issue and I want pressure bought on the policy makers because this should be a vote winning or losing issue to the politicians. I'm surprised no opposition parties have joined the band wagon because I have contacted many who seem strangely silent upto this point.

I am also alittle sad about the apathy of The Alzheimers Society and Age Concern who I have also approached. I mentioned the Petition and was made to feel that "we have tried this and that and bought the T-shirt" so to speak!

If you look at the Alzheimers Forum - it's full of Poems and people chit chatting, which is fine BUT I sense alittle lack of back-bone or drive to actually make a difference.

I guess I want to see a sense of pro-active to my threads - I'm sure I speak for all the relatives on this forum when I say we don't want sympathy we want a fair crack of the whip SOCIAL CARE is SOCIAL CARE but HEALTH CARE is also considered SOCIAL CARE to the people with the power-trips, the so called 'CARE-Co-ordinators' and 'Social Workers'.

Last edited by Shaky on Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
TCB, Shaky

(fightthebureaucracy.org)

Pam

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:44 pm

Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 2 Location: Nottingham

The Department of Health are presently "consulting" on a new National Framework. From what I've read it does seem less subjective than our present Strategig Health Authorities assessment. Information is available on www.dh.gov.uk/LiveConsultations (about half way down). Where we are the local PCT have done an audit and announced a reduction in the continuing care beds from 71 beds to 45 (despite an ageing population). They have now reassessed many people and found they no longer qualify for continuing care. The criteria seems to be once you are too frail to attack patients or staff or now so immobile you are not likely to "escape" then your major need is social not health! They seem to be rushing this through before the new National Framework is introduced as several of the patients appear that they would score highly using the new criteria.
During their "consultation period" we presented a petition, the local radio had a phone in program where all the calls were opposed to their new proposals and the written replies were "overwhelmingly" against these new proposals. Guess what they passed the proposals albeit with some qualifications. It still has to go to other boards but if it isn't passed then they admit they will just resubmit with minor adjustments until it is accepted.
The managers seem to see the old and vulnerable as an easy target when it comes to saving money. If we judge a society on the way it treats its vulnerable citizens then I can honestly say our society is in a very sad state.
Keep up the good work

_________________
Qui tacet consentit

yvonne jones

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:54 am

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 9

Health care is health care and should be free, health care can appear to be social care but is not it is still health care. The people in the front line, nurses, ward managers, are carrying out instructions based on illegal state but they are"only doing their job". I have contacted the conservative party, I am not a member of any party, but have had no satisfaction. I believe the reason is that if we break through this illegal barrier, as we must do, there will be an almighty funding crisis in the NHS. All those saying the elderly must pay are aware of this. Instead of them making victims of the most vulnerable they , the government, need to face the problem full on and plan for it. I have suggested that charity begins at home... I know we are not talking of charity, that our elders have paid for their care already in NI stamps and tax, but you know what I mean, so 1) cut overseas aid and ringfence it for the elderly care, 2) introduce an emergency 3 year tax to pay for care, 3) increas and ringfence a portion of tax for future generation care 4) either direct lottery monies for care, during the period of emergency, or start a new lottery which profit is only for care of the elderly. I wrote to the Queen, yes I know, my letter has been forwarded to three different dept so far each saying its not their responsibility. I agree about the apathy generally, it must be a combined effort and energy. Information I have gathered is if you are unfortunate enough to have your relative sectioned under section 3 ,of the mental health act, then under section 117, soc services are fully responsible for all after care, ie residential home etc. also if some one over 60, (not under even if that younger person is a daughter or son,) living in the property then it can not be taken into account, but the over 60 must have a right to be there, son, daughter, sister, brother etc. Any one got other info that is of possible use?

Shaky

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:31 pm

Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 173 Location: Birmingham

Thanks Yvonne for all the effets you have put in, I look forward to meeting with you when the March is finalised!

Quote:

also if some one over 60, (not under even if that younger person is a daughter or son,) living in the property then it can not be taken into account, but the over 60 must have a right to be there, son, daughter, sister, brother etc. Any one got other info that is of possible use?

The property can not be considered if the person living their is over 60 or under 16 BUT be aware that a charge can be placed on the property should these circumstances change. Like the flawed criteria the decision to place a charge on your property is a post-code lottery of whichever Council you fall under!-

_________________
TCB, Shaky

(fightthebureaucracy.org)

saintalan

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:47 pm

Joined: 16 Jan 2007 Posts: 3

Shaky wrote:

...

Quote:

The property can not be considered if the person living their is over 60...

Yvonne & Shaky

I know this thread is a little old now but hopefully you may pick this up. Apart from NHS issues I am still doing battle with my LA over my mum-in-law's mean tested property. It's a little complicated (aren't they all!) but one specific issue I am having is that my wife (who jointly owns the property) and I have moved in since I became 60. Both CRAG & IS regs say the property must be disregarded but my LA is denying it, I am awaiting a written reason.

Their initial comment was we moved in after 5 years since mum went in to care, foolishly we rented the property as (we thought) mum must be self funding. They said we must have been there at the start to qualify. Another factor could be is that I still own our previous home, which is being refurbished and I had hoped to rent but maybe we need to sell?

I have scoured the regs but cant see anywhere that the person who is 'a relative and over 60' is means tested.

Any ideas or knowledge apreciated.

Regards Alan

Shaky

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:37 am

Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 173 Location: Birmingham

I don't have time now to cut and paste BUT speaking from experience the Local Authority cannot remove a person living in the property under the age of 16 or over the age of 60. They can however, (at their discretion)place a charge on the property until deed transfer takes place or the age of the under 16 has reached 16. Like everything else, the 'post-code' lottery rule applies and some La's enforce this rule and some do not!

If this rule has changed I stand corrected BUT this was applicable last time I faced this situation.

Remember next time you pick up your pay packet from work that your contributions to the NHS would be better spent on private health care IF you are unlucky enough to fall sick with certain (long-term) illnesses that the system feels it can sweep under the carpet and TAX YOU TWICE. Our young people facing the future can only learn that you are better of spending your cash and not saving anything, better still sponge of the state and you can relax in the knowledge that ALL YOUR health needs will be addressed without question.

_________________
TCB, Shaky

(fightthebureaucracy.org)

saintalan

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:49 am

Joined: 16 Jan 2007 Posts: 3

Thanks Shaky

I have searched both GRAG & IS regs but can find nothing to the contrary. Do you know of any other regs etc that are more explicit.

Regards

Alan

PS Certainly take your point in your summary!

saintalan

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:28 pm

Joined: 16 Jan 2007 Posts: 3

Shaky wrote:

...speaking from experience the Local Authority cannot remove a person living in the property under the age of 16 or over the age of 60. They can however, (at their discretion)place a charge on the property until deed transfer takes place or the age of the under 16 has reached 16. ...

Shaky Hi

I have now heard from the LA that they are denying the property disregard (relative of 60+) due to the fact that we were not resident in the property when mum went into care. I have chapter and verse if you or anyone else can help with detailed application of the CRAG/IS regs or precedents either way.

Regards

Alan

All times are GMT

View next topic View previous topic Page 1 of 1 Fight The Bureaucracy - Phil Shakespeare's National Homes Swindle Forum Index ~ Legal assistance

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum