We think that were it to happen over the same period, it could be regarded as equating to double charging.
There are two forms of charging rules. One takes account of a person’s main home (the value of their share in the property), the other (for those having care in a non care home setting) does not. A local authority cannot account for the value of a person’s house when receiving home care, but usually, if a person is in a care home, then it can (other than when there is a mandatory or discretionary disregard of that share). When in respite in a care home setting, a local authority has a choice as to whether to charge a temporary residential rate, or more commonly, the home care rate (whilst not charging for home care that will not be being delivered during the respite session, we think – but that might depend on the terms of the contract with the home care provider, regarding market based practice regarding retention of staff and its margin).
If a person is paying for their home care, and even when they are in respite, they are paying for that at the temporary residential care rate, without time off of home care charges for the period spent in respite, we think that this MAY mean they are being double charged which is contrary to the Care Act. However we note that there are LGSCO reports in which a person’s estate has been regarded as appropriately charged for the period of ongoing financial commitment under the contract between the care home and the council, in the event of death. So the point is ultimately an undecided one. We also know that it is standard charging practice to continue to charge the same amount as the assessed charge, over a financial year, when the person has not for whatever reason spent a chunk of their personal budget, and not HAD the service it was intended to cover, and this is justifiable as long as the chunk that WAS able to be spent is still more than the annual charge because the only clear prohibition in the charging regulations and Care Act is that the person is not charged for any more than their personal budget. We think that good practice requires people to be INFORMED as to the implications of respite and respite charging ARE, on their ordinary package of care and the charges for that when the periods overlap. Since ALL charging is discretionary, there is a good basis for insisting on an articulated set of reasons for a council not exercising that discretion in the person’s favour when it seems unfair that they should pay two sets of charges for the same period.