Tweet
I have started this thread to try to highlight the difficulties of dealing with Social Services particularly if you have a vulnerable adult in your family. We could write a book on this subject as canmany others but in these days of financial constraint Social Services departments are trying to foist on to unsuspecting families just about every confidence trick in the book.
It is wise to get a firm handle on the regulations and various laws which govern such care.
From our experiences, I will give a brief background. Mrs G has a younger brother (now 58 years old) who has been mentally handicapped since birth due to his mother’s exposure to a Rubella infection during pregnancy. Unfortunately he fell between two stools as regards his capabilities, a sort of “halfway house” situation. His parents passed away 12 years ago now and the battle for his care and support fell upon remaining siblings and their respective spouses. His physical health also has deteriorated in recent years making him somewhat frail and further deterioration of his mental capability due to the onset of dementia has exacerbated his problems.
That is the back ground. Social Services have put the family through hoops of fire in those 12 years without any real resolution to his problems or long term care. This led to Mrs G and myself looking very carefully into the law surrounding these situations and came to some surprising findings where Social Services were and are flouting the Law. The SAGA website is a good starting point strangely enough. This is certainly the case in the Metropolitan Borough we are talking about and certainly one big City Council from recent decisions in the High Court against them. In our own case my brother in law was sectioned under 3 of the Mental Health Act just after his father finally passed away 12 years ago, (the first of several times as time passed). This was carried out by the social worker and a doctor he had brought to the case. This social worker had invoked the Human Rights Legislation to allow my BIL to stay in the large three bedroomed council house that had been the family home, to live alone with visiting carers whilst he really needed full time care.Of course the care package fell apart and following complaints by neighbours etc. the section order was brought. This was the first again of several attempts and abject failures of “care in the community”. All carried out against the wishes of his family.
What most people do not realise (including, we have found, outmost councils and social workers) is that once this has happened, i.e. a section order under section 3, section 117 of the Mental Health Act kicks in immediately and the local authority concerned becomes TOTALLY responsible financially for any and all care that the vulnerable person requires for the REMAINDER OF THEIR LIVES. Social Services become very embarrassed and annoyed once families make them aware that they know of this situation and the loved one(s) are subject in fact to a section117 order.
However the latest dream of care in the community is a fantasy (for many vulnerable adults) scheme called variously “SupportedLiving”, “Assisted Living” or “Supportive Living”. This is little more than a growing industry ( very profitable for a few businesses) which is a financial confidence trick being foisted on to unsuspecting families, council taxpayers and a hiving off of their Statutory obligations by Social Services departments also being exploited by Primary Care NHS Trusts. The latest manifestation that they have tried on with us is that they give us an agreed lump sum each week based on BIL’s “personal budget” that they have allocated and that we with their help get him to sign up a tenancy agreement on a property and that we employ carers and specialist nursing that he requires now. This is for a person who is not considered in law of sound enough mind to sign a lasting power of attorney (either financial or health and welfare). He is not of sound enough mind we are told to even sign the consent form for a minor surgical procedure he is in desperate need of to make his life more comfortable and none of the carers, next of kin (Mrs G’sElder brother) are acceptable signatories either. We have spoken with HMRC about this scheme and their opinion is that we should NOT AT ALL get involved in any such scheme. To remain safe clean and above board we would have to register with them as a business, have all the responsibility of national insurance, holiday pay and all of the trappings of proper employer. HMRC do have legitimate schemes various to help families in this position but the safest way is to register as a business and run the care packages as a business. Not a very good prospect when all of the costs of insurances (PL, EL, Statutory sick pay) are taken into account and of course the compulsory pension packages now in force. It is matters such as this that Social services can pay for, but have no Statutory obligation to pay for and hence they WON’T pay. That is without the potential for having to register with the Care Quality Commission and pass their stringent requirements for a business to offer care of this nature.
BIL at a recent placement forced upon us by Social Services(before we became more aware of the law) was being abused physically, mentally and financially and we discovered that “Adult Safeguarding” is nothing more than an ineffectual joke with owners of transgressing care providers being allowed to sit on the committees investigating the complaints against them with a vote!
However, this family sought out and found very specialist legal advice, to whom Social Services and the Metropolitan Borough Council refuse to respond. It is not necessarily cheap but is priceless if you have a loved one in this terrible situation. The course of action now being taken is that two members of the direct family are applying to the Court of Protection for a “Deputyship”, meaning that they essentially become Officers of the Court answering to the Public Guardian’s office. There are responsibilities attached to this. The Deputyship falls into two distinct areas (for lay people like ourselves) very similar to the Lasting Power of Attorney procedures now in place. Normally the Court grant the Financial portion without question in toto and the Welfare section may be split but not always into various “aspects” some of which or all may be granted by the Court.This means that either Deputy will be able to sign the medical consent forms, now so necessary without further ado and that Social Services will NOT be able to even draw breath in BIL’s case without the express permission of the Deputies. If Social Services do so then a report can be made to the Public Guardian by the deputy, and they will then act with the full force of the High Court as we are talking about very vulnerable people and often very ill people.As these orders may take three to four months to go through, the Court can be asked (as we have done) for an interim forthwith type order. It is worth getting a legal professional to deal with all this as it is very much like the Lasting Power of Attorney documentation which MUST be absolutely correct otherwise the Court will throw it out and a new application will have to be made with all the costs that does incur. Legal fees, for our family to draw up all the forms, are going to be £850 and the court fees are £400. However if all done correctly the legal representatives can seek the indulgence of the Court and at their absolute discretion they may (and often do in these cases) waive the court fee where vulnerable people are concerned.
Obviously there is much more involved with this case,including a Law Commission report and guidelines which came out last year which should have led to the start of draft legislation being drawn up in July 2012. I have not as yet been able to ascertain the status of this draft legislation. However from a 227 page document I was able to determine that the in their wisdom the Law Commission were endeavouring to close a gap in current legislation which, is being exploited immorally by Social Services departments and the NHS to abdicate their responsibilities to vulnerable people in positions similar to my BIL.
I have bored you enough but am happy to discuss any further aspects of the experiences we have had to put up with from people who claim to be “professionals” in social care and inclusion.
Best regards
G
It is wise to get a firm handle on the regulations and various laws which govern such care.
From our experiences, I will give a brief background. Mrs G has a younger brother (now 58 years old) who has been mentally handicapped since birth due to his mother’s exposure to a Rubella infection during pregnancy. Unfortunately he fell between two stools as regards his capabilities, a sort of “halfway house” situation. His parents passed away 12 years ago now and the battle for his care and support fell upon remaining siblings and their respective spouses. His physical health also has deteriorated in recent years making him somewhat frail and further deterioration of his mental capability due to the onset of dementia has exacerbated his problems.
That is the back ground. Social Services have put the family through hoops of fire in those 12 years without any real resolution to his problems or long term care. This led to Mrs G and myself looking very carefully into the law surrounding these situations and came to some surprising findings where Social Services were and are flouting the Law. The SAGA website is a good starting point strangely enough. This is certainly the case in the Metropolitan Borough we are talking about and certainly one big City Council from recent decisions in the High Court against them. In our own case my brother in law was sectioned under 3 of the Mental Health Act just after his father finally passed away 12 years ago, (the first of several times as time passed). This was carried out by the social worker and a doctor he had brought to the case. This social worker had invoked the Human Rights Legislation to allow my BIL to stay in the large three bedroomed council house that had been the family home, to live alone with visiting carers whilst he really needed full time care.Of course the care package fell apart and following complaints by neighbours etc. the section order was brought. This was the first again of several attempts and abject failures of “care in the community”. All carried out against the wishes of his family.
What most people do not realise (including, we have found, outmost councils and social workers) is that once this has happened, i.e. a section order under section 3, section 117 of the Mental Health Act kicks in immediately and the local authority concerned becomes TOTALLY responsible financially for any and all care that the vulnerable person requires for the REMAINDER OF THEIR LIVES. Social Services become very embarrassed and annoyed once families make them aware that they know of this situation and the loved one(s) are subject in fact to a section117 order.
However the latest dream of care in the community is a fantasy (for many vulnerable adults) scheme called variously “SupportedLiving”, “Assisted Living” or “Supportive Living”. This is little more than a growing industry ( very profitable for a few businesses) which is a financial confidence trick being foisted on to unsuspecting families, council taxpayers and a hiving off of their Statutory obligations by Social Services departments also being exploited by Primary Care NHS Trusts. The latest manifestation that they have tried on with us is that they give us an agreed lump sum each week based on BIL’s “personal budget” that they have allocated and that we with their help get him to sign up a tenancy agreement on a property and that we employ carers and specialist nursing that he requires now. This is for a person who is not considered in law of sound enough mind to sign a lasting power of attorney (either financial or health and welfare). He is not of sound enough mind we are told to even sign the consent form for a minor surgical procedure he is in desperate need of to make his life more comfortable and none of the carers, next of kin (Mrs G’sElder brother) are acceptable signatories either. We have spoken with HMRC about this scheme and their opinion is that we should NOT AT ALL get involved in any such scheme. To remain safe clean and above board we would have to register with them as a business, have all the responsibility of national insurance, holiday pay and all of the trappings of proper employer. HMRC do have legitimate schemes various to help families in this position but the safest way is to register as a business and run the care packages as a business. Not a very good prospect when all of the costs of insurances (PL, EL, Statutory sick pay) are taken into account and of course the compulsory pension packages now in force. It is matters such as this that Social services can pay for, but have no Statutory obligation to pay for and hence they WON’T pay. That is without the potential for having to register with the Care Quality Commission and pass their stringent requirements for a business to offer care of this nature.
BIL at a recent placement forced upon us by Social Services(before we became more aware of the law) was being abused physically, mentally and financially and we discovered that “Adult Safeguarding” is nothing more than an ineffectual joke with owners of transgressing care providers being allowed to sit on the committees investigating the complaints against them with a vote!
However, this family sought out and found very specialist legal advice, to whom Social Services and the Metropolitan Borough Council refuse to respond. It is not necessarily cheap but is priceless if you have a loved one in this terrible situation. The course of action now being taken is that two members of the direct family are applying to the Court of Protection for a “Deputyship”, meaning that they essentially become Officers of the Court answering to the Public Guardian’s office. There are responsibilities attached to this. The Deputyship falls into two distinct areas (for lay people like ourselves) very similar to the Lasting Power of Attorney procedures now in place. Normally the Court grant the Financial portion without question in toto and the Welfare section may be split but not always into various “aspects” some of which or all may be granted by the Court.This means that either Deputy will be able to sign the medical consent forms, now so necessary without further ado and that Social Services will NOT be able to even draw breath in BIL’s case without the express permission of the Deputies. If Social Services do so then a report can be made to the Public Guardian by the deputy, and they will then act with the full force of the High Court as we are talking about very vulnerable people and often very ill people.As these orders may take three to four months to go through, the Court can be asked (as we have done) for an interim forthwith type order. It is worth getting a legal professional to deal with all this as it is very much like the Lasting Power of Attorney documentation which MUST be absolutely correct otherwise the Court will throw it out and a new application will have to be made with all the costs that does incur. Legal fees, for our family to draw up all the forms, are going to be £850 and the court fees are £400. However if all done correctly the legal representatives can seek the indulgence of the Court and at their absolute discretion they may (and often do in these cases) waive the court fee where vulnerable people are concerned.
Obviously there is much more involved with this case,including a Law Commission report and guidelines which came out last year which should have led to the start of draft legislation being drawn up in July 2012. I have not as yet been able to ascertain the status of this draft legislation. However from a 227 page document I was able to determine that the in their wisdom the Law Commission were endeavouring to close a gap in current legislation which, is being exploited immorally by Social Services departments and the NHS to abdicate their responsibilities to vulnerable people in positions similar to my BIL.
I have bored you enough but am happy to discuss any further aspects of the experiences we have had to put up with from people who claim to be “professionals” in social care and inclusion.
Best regards
G
Comment