Inflation (depending on the index used) could well be a lawfully relevant consideration on the part of commissioners as to what the council’s providers will need to be paid to keep enough of them on the council’s books to meet the anticipated throughput of need which the council’s data suggests will need to be organised for the discharge of the duty to meet needs. It is also likely to be relevant to the ease with which a person choosing a direct payment can find a person to employ, directly, because the cost of living for that prospective employee will be impacting on their job selection thinking. But there is no law that the rate must go up in line with inflation, no. The sufficiency duty is to based on the council’s intelligence about the local quality market rate, according to the Guidance, because if that’s not being offered, the council will be at risk of judicial review.
Is it the law that a direct payment should be put up annually in line with inflation?
Leave a Comment
/ Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Direct Payments Q&As, Due process requirements associated with Direct Payments and Health Budgets, Due process rights in care planning, Duties and Discretions, Indicative Budgets for Care Planning, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Public law principles relevant to non-commissioned services, Q&As on Direct Payments, The council's review of a Direct Payment Plan and Use of the Money, The irrelevance of a council's financial resources for whether a need is met; relevant only for HOW, Universal duties to meet eligible unmet needs adequately and appropriately / By
CASCAIDr