Accommodation rights associated with CHC (Care home placements and supported living through the ICB’s plan)

My son receives s.117 Aftercare funding. He is due a small legacy of £40K. He is currently in supported living and both his housing and care are paid for by the ICB. However, if my son were to move into his own home, i.e a rented flat would his legacy money have to pay for his housing and care or as he is s.117 funded would the ICB be responsible for paying for both?

Leave a Comment / Accommodation rights associated with CHC (Care home placements and supported living through the ICB’s plan), Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Charging and financial assessment, Deprivation of Assets to avoid paying for care, How housing rights fit in with the Care Act, How NHS services and Continuing NHS Health Care fit in with the Care Act, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Paying for necessary goods and services, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), Reviews and revisions of Continuing NHS Healthcare and s 117 Aftercare plans, Reviews, Revisions and Re-assessments under the Care Act, Supported Living and Care, The ICB’s duties and challenging the decision /

It is unusual for housing to be paid for by an ICB and council for a person on s117 aftercare, but not wrong in principle. If he were to move to his own home and sign a tenancy, his legacy would mean he would not get benefits. He may prefer to do that, in terms […]

My son receives s.117 Aftercare funding. He is due a small legacy of £40K. He is currently in supported living and both his housing and care are paid for by the ICB. However, if my son were to move into his own home, i.e a rented flat would his legacy money have to pay for his housing and care or as he is s.117 funded would the ICB be responsible for paying for both? Read More »

Court of Protection Hearing (COP 13679387) before District Judge Brown sitting at Bristol Civil & Family Justice Centre was heard remotely on 2nd March 2023

Leave a Comment / Accommodation rights associated with CHC (Care home placements and supported living through the ICB’s plan), Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Care Planning and reviews for CHC patients in light of Public Law Principles, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Hospital Discharge and CHC status, interim care, rehabilitation and reablement, How NHS services and Continuing NHS Health Care fit in with the Care Act, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, The ICB’s duties and challenging the decision /

Taken from Open Justice Court of Protection Project article Injunction against a mother biting the bullet– By Avaia Williams (Barrister in training) – 8 March 2023 DS is a man in his early thirties. He has a profound learning disability, spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, does not communicate in words and has been assessed as lacking

Court of Protection Hearing (COP 13679387) before District Judge Brown sitting at Bristol Civil & Family Justice Centre was heard remotely on 2nd March 2023 Read More »

R (on the application of Ruth Whapples) v Birmingham Crosscity Clinical Commissioning Group v The Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 2647 (Admin)

Leave a Comment / Accommodation rights associated with CHC (Care home placements and supported living through the ICB’s plan), Care Planning and reviews for CHC patients in light of Public Law Principles, How NHS services and Continuing NHS Health Care fit in with the Care Act, Judicial Review, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights /

RW had severe medical problems, including being paralysed from the neck down.  No definite diagnosis for her condition had ever been made but it was common ground that her condition was due to post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), caused by abuse that occurred to her in institutions during childhood.  RW was also registered blind.  

R (on the application of Ruth Whapples) v Birmingham Crosscity Clinical Commissioning Group v The Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 2647 (Admin) Read More »

R (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: R(AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Mersey Care NHS Trust, SS Home Department, MIND. [2005] EWHC

Leave a Comment / Accommodation rights associated with CHC (Care home placements and supported living through the ICB’s plan), Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Care and Treatment Reviews for people detained or at risk of detention under the Mental Health Act, Hospital Discharge and CHC status, interim care, rehabilitation and reablement, How NHS services and Continuing NHS Health Care fit in with the Care Act, Judicial Review, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, The ICB’s duties and challenging the decision, The relevance of the criminal law to health and social care /

The claimants were 2 mental health patients, DJ and AN, who sought judicial review of the decisions of their respective mental health review tribunals not to discharge them from hospital. The key issue was whether the tribunals were mistaken in applying the civil standard of proof of a balance of probabilities when determining whether they

R (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: R(AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Mersey Care NHS Trust, SS Home Department, MIND. [2005] EWHC Read More »

R (Aweys & Others) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin)

Leave a Comment / Accommodation rights associated with CHC (Care home placements and supported living through the ICB’s plan), Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Consent to treatment, being accommodated, and admission to hospital for children under 18, Delay and non-commissioning, Duties and Discretions, How Children's Services fit in with the Care Act (and transitioning from Children's Services, How NHS services and Continuing NHS Health Care fit in with the Care Act, Judicial Review, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Section 20 accommodation arrangements under the Children Act, The relevance of a council's financial resources for delay and the running of waiting lists for meeting eligible unmet needs, Universal duties to meet eligible unmet needs adequately and appropriately /

This case dealt with seven claims for judicial review together due to the manner in which the defendant, Birmingham City council (Birmingham), dealt with the claimants’ homelessness applications.  In each case Birmingham accepted they were homeless in priority need and that their homelessness was not intentional.  Thus the full duty under Part VII of the

R (Aweys & Others) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin) Read More »