Decision date: 24 June 2024 Summary This was a charging complaint related to reablement – the free care that comes after hospital discharge if one is considered suited to that sort of service, the purpose being to help a person to preserve or regain the ability to live independently. Mrs Y was charged, by dint […]
R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council [2024] EWHC 701 (Admin) 26 March 2024 – Collins Rice J Summary – This case concerned Birmingham City Council’s charging policy which the claimant YVR contended discriminated “against people who, like him, are so disabled they cannot, and will never be able to, do any paid work.” Click on
R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council Read More »
Yes and no. Nobody’s ability to pay charges affects whether or not they get care, under the Care Act. One’s contractual consent is not necessary – one is obliged to pay by the Care Act, once the charge is levied, but on the other hand, NOT paying does not mean that the council can stop
Yes, because a direct payment holder is not running a business, and is not taking on a statutory duty of the council towards others. That is not to say however, that a market rate for a particular sort of skill would never be higher in the direct payment PA market than the rate paid to agencies,
The employer decides what s/he wants to pay in light of the market – and the skill, profile of availability and scope of the role – in private law terms under employment law. But the direct payment council decides what it thinks the employer is going to NEED to pay to attract staff – because
It is not lawful for any employer to pay less than the National Minimum Wage, so the direct payment cannot be less than that, but the counting rules and rules about sleeping time can make it difficult to identify if that is in fact happening. The employer’s responsibility is absolute, regardless of what the council
You need to login to view this content. If you are already logged in and still seeing this message your account has not been upgraded to a full account yet. If you think this is in error please contact us by clicking here
In assessing the ability to pay for residential accommodation, a local authority is entitled to treat persons as possessing actual capital of which they have deprived themselves for the purpose of decreasing the amount that they may be liable to pay for their accommodation, notwithstanding the fact that they deprived themselves of the capital outside
Taylor v Secretary of State for Justice and National Probation Service North West Division [2015] EWHC 3245 (Admin) Keywords: Approved premises, co-operation duty The claimant (77) was a life sentence prisoner who had been in prison for 40 years. His release had been directed by the Parole Board in May 2014. However, he had not
Residential accommodation – charging – capital – disregards The local authority’s decision to create a charge on the applicant’s property (under s22 Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983), which was now occupied by her son, was not unreasonable. The applicant’s son had returned from Australia to help look after his ill