Person’s own circumstances – the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs

After years of fighting for an adequate care package at home, my elder sister’s council/social worker offered her a care home and refused to provide a slight increase in care that would have meet her needs in the community. Since she’s been in the care home she has rapidly declined in her physical and mental health as well as her mobility and cognitive/language abilities. She still maintains her own GP, who is shocked by how rapidly she’s declined despite the home providing decent care. She is a thousand times worse in the residential home than she was in her own place with the meager amount of support she was given. Is there anything at all we can do about this to hold the council responsible for failing her in this way?

Leave a Comment / Assessing for incapacity where it is relevant to Care Act functions, Assessment and Eligibility, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Choice of Accommodation post Care Act, Choice of Accommodation Rights for Mental Health Act aftercare clients, Failings to Assess, Reassess, Review Q&As, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Judicial Review, Legal Aid for Judicial Review in the Administrative Court and Court of Protection, Mental Capacity and Best Interests Q&As, Overview of what is required by the rules on Deprivation of Liberty, under the DoL Safeguards, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Procedural safeguards before meeting needs with a regime that amounts to Deprivation of Liberty, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Q&As on Failings regarding Assessments, Re-assessments, Reviews, Q&As on Mental Capacity and Best Interests decision-making, Q&As on Remedies, Relevance of mental capacity for Choice of Accommodation Rights, Remedies Q&As, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), Reviews, Revisions and Re-assessments under the Care Act, The conditions on which choice of accommodation depends, The difference between a top up for one's preferred accommodation and additional payments for other kinds of care, The significance of an arbitarily/indefensibly low rate to meet a person's need for Choice of Accommodation challenges /

Does she have a home to go to, still? I.e. accommodation where she has a right to occupy? It doesn’t have to be HERS – it could be the home of a relative, or the opportunity to have a tenancy in another building in which care could be provided, in theory. If so, ask for […]

After years of fighting for an adequate care package at home, my elder sister’s council/social worker offered her a care home and refused to provide a slight increase in care that would have meet her needs in the community. Since she’s been in the care home she has rapidly declined in her physical and mental health as well as her mobility and cognitive/language abilities. She still maintains her own GP, who is shocked by how rapidly she’s declined despite the home providing decent care. She is a thousand times worse in the residential home than she was in her own place with the meager amount of support she was given. Is there anything at all we can do about this to hold the council responsible for failing her in this way? Read More »

When someone has an existing care package in place and their needs increase to such a point that they require two to one care, does the council have a duty to provide more money to fund a second carer, or can they force a reduction in the over all care hours to split the budget between two carers instead, leaving the service user with fewer hours support overall?

Leave a Comment / Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Due process in eligibility decision-making under the Care Act, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Eligibility under various legislative frameworks for care and support, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Impact in terms of the Care Act eligibility threshold, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Review of the Care Plan - scheduled, requested and urgent review, 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, Revision process under s27 Care Act - proportionate re-assessment, a new eligibility decision and fresh care planning, The council's review of a Direct Payment Plan and Use of the Money /

When needs change, in frequency, intensity, or complexity, or change nature, there needs to be a review to consider whether the plan and budget need to be revised. The plan and budget are needs led, so logically, an increase in needs means an increase in budget, OR a change in way needs are met. It

When someone has an existing care package in place and their needs increase to such a point that they require two to one care, does the council have a duty to provide more money to fund a second carer, or can they force a reduction in the over all care hours to split the budget between two carers instead, leaving the service user with fewer hours support overall? Read More »

Do you always need to be reassessed if you wish to use a pre-exisiting care package/budget differently, just to better meet needs, not because there’s been a change in them?

Leave a Comment / Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Article 5 the right to liberty, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Discretionary charging for meeting a person's needs under the Care Act, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Duties and Discretions, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Human Rights principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning, Review of the Care Plan - scheduled, requested and urgent review, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), The range of services or items on which a direct payment or PHB can lawfully be spent and those on which it cannot be spent /

It depends on how specific your original care or support plan was in the first place, and the direct payments practice/policies of your council. The more specific, the more INPUT/task/service based the care or support plan was, the less flexibility you were given. The more OUTCOMES based it was, the more flexibility you were given,

Do you always need to be reassessed if you wish to use a pre-exisiting care package/budget differently, just to better meet needs, not because there’s been a change in them? Read More »

Who really has the right to decide on how and when a DP’s use can be changed?

Leave a Comment / Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Commissioner's circumstances - reductions due to financial resources difficulties & variations RE the manner of meeting needs, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Direct Payments Q&As, Discretionary charging for meeting a person's needs under the Care Act, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Duties and Discretions, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Provider's circumstances - closures, service reconfigurations and staffing issues, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Q&As on Direct Payments, Review of the Care Plan - scheduled, requested and urgent review, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), Revision process under s27 Care Act - proportionate re-assessment, a new eligibility decision and fresh care planning, The conditions applicable to a Direct Payment under the Care Act compared to those applicable to PHBs, The council's review of a Direct Payment Plan and Use of the Money /

ouncils are in charge of direct payments under the legal framework. Revision of any care plan connotes some sort of re-assessment and fresh care planning process under the authority of the council. Section 33 says that they can impose conditions as they think fit, within some broad parameters regarding reasonableness, and that they can prohibit

Who really has the right to decide on how and when a DP’s use can be changed? Read More »

JG, R (on the application of) v LB of Southwark

Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment of carers under s10 of the Care Act, Assessment under the Care Act, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Judicial Review, Legal rules as to what must be considered on Assessment, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Meeting eligible carers' needs, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), The rights of carers, in relation to health and social care services and support /

[2020] EWHC 1989 (Admin) Case Background JG was a ‘profoundly disabled young woman’ who requires care and supervision with all aspects of her daily life. She received care at home, by her parents, and a team of paid carers funded by the Council (the defendant). Southwark Borough Council had provided JG with care since 2013,

JG, R (on the application of) v LB of Southwark Read More »

R (on the application of Rafaela Savva) v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council (2010) EWHC 414 (Admin)

1 Comment / Article 6 the right to a fair determination of one’s civil rights, Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Delay, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Due process requirements associated with Direct Payments and Health Budgets, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Duties and Discretions, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Human Rights in health and Social Care, Judicial Review, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), The duty to act under the Care and Support Guidance (and other such Codes or Frameworks), The irrelevance of a council's financial resources for whether a need is met; relevant only for HOW /

This case is one of the first to consider the legality of personal budgets to meet adult social care needs. In particular this case focused on the obligations placed on local authorities under the current adult community care legislation and whether the particular resource allocation scheme adopted was capable of meeting these obligations. The claimant,

R (on the application of Rafaela Savva) v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council (2010) EWHC 414 (Admin) Read More »

R (on the application of C) v WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (2015)

Leave a Comment / Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

R (on the application of C) v WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (2015) Keywords: Legitimate expectation; Education; irrationality. A decision by a local authority to cease funding for a residential educational placement was unlawful because it breached his legitimate expectation. However failure to obtain desirable evidence and limitations in the detail to which the local authority had

R (on the application of C) v WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (2015) Read More »