Reviews and revisions of Continuing NHS Healthcare and s 117 Aftercare plans Archives - Centre for Adults' Social Care - Analysis, Information and Dispute Resolution

The whole West Northants care system is criticised for its s117-Lite approach (before the 2022 Act but despite long-standing statutory duties of co-operation)

Decision Date: 29 April 2024 Summary: An autistic man with learning disabilities, Mr B, was discharged from psychiatric hospital in 2017, into a series of supported living placements, without a s117 care plan, only the Care Act ever having been used. This was done without reasonable adjustments made for his communication difficulties. Whenever arrangements broke […]

The whole West Northants care system is criticised for its s117-Lite approach (before the 2022 Act but despite long-standing statutory duties of co-operation) Read More »

How should a person’s personal or social care needs be identified if they change after the person has become CHC eligible – that is, the last Care Act assessment is now out of date?

Leave a Comment / Care Planning and reviews for CHC patients in light of Public Law Principles, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, How NHS services and Continuing NHS Health Care fit in with the Care Act, 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, The ICB’s duties and challenging the decision / CASCAIDr

You can read up about Review of CHC eligible needs in the National Framework document (updated July 2022) here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1087562/National-Framework-for-NHS-Continuing-Healthcare-and-NHS-funded-Nursing-Care-July-2022-revised.pdf (paras 206 and 207) but in essence, one needs to ask the ICB for a Review, explaining why, and ask what arrangements there are in place locally for the input and expertise of the social

How should a person’s personal or social care needs be identified if they change after the person has become CHC eligible – that is, the last Care Act assessment is now out of date? Read More »

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 / CASCAIDr

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 »

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 / CASCAIDr

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 »

R (Damien Tinsley (by his litigation friend and property and affairs deputy, Hugh Jones) v Manchester City Council and South Manchester Clinical Commissioning Group and LGA (Intervener) (2017)

Care and Treatment Reviews for people detained or at risk of detention under the Mental Health Act, Civil Proceedings, Financial Compensation and Restitution, How the Care Act fits in with the Mental Health Act (and s117 aftercare), How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Power of attorney and deputyship - scope and limitations, 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 and revisions of Continuing NHS Healthcare and s 117 Aftercare plans, Reviews, Revisions and Re-assessments under the Care Act, The relevance of the criminal law to health and social care / Zoe Parsons

Keywords: s117, Charging, Personal Injury, Trusts This was the appeal by Manchester City Council and South Manchester CCG against the ruling that they were obliged to provide s.117 aftercare services regardless of the assets of a man who had previously been awarded personal injury damages and even though they were intended to fund his care.

R (Damien Tinsley (by his litigation friend and property and affairs deputy, Hugh Jones) v Manchester City Council and South Manchester Clinical Commissioning Group and LGA (Intervener) (2017) Read More »

Richards v Worcestershire County Council (2017)

Civil Proceedings, Financial Compensation and Restitution, How the Care Act fits in with the Mental Health Act (and s117 aftercare), Judicial Review, 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 and revisions of Continuing NHS Healthcare and s 117 Aftercare plans, Reviews, Revisions and Re-assessments under the Care Act / Zoe Parsons

Keywords: s.117, private law claim, judicial review This is the appeal from Richards (by his deputy and litigation friend Anne Minihane) v Worcestershire County Council and South Worcestershire CCG [2016] in which the court declined to strike out a private law claim for the funds expended by a Deputy on providing care for an individual who

Richards v Worcestershire County Council (2017) Read More »

Re S (an adult) [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam)

Leave a Comment / Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Duties and Discretions, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Powers and circumstances in which there may only be one sole justifiable response, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, 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 / Gabe

Declaratory relief – human rights – best interests – inherent jurisdiction S was a young adult with severe learning disabilities, limited communication ability and some physical disabilities. He had always been cared for at home by his father, DS. It was common ground that S was unable to manage his property and affairs and that

Re S (an adult) [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam) Read More »

Ealing District Health Authority, ex parte Fox [1993] 3 All ER 170 (QBD)

Leave a Comment / Assessment and Eligibility, Due process in eligibility decision-making, Eligibility for s117 Mental Health Act aftercare, How the Care Act fits in with the Mental Health Act (and s117 aftercare), 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 / Gabe

A district health authority was under a mandatory duty under s 117 of the 1983 Act to provide after-care services for any person to whom the section applied and was therefore under a duty to make practical arrangements for after-care prior to a patient’s discharge from hospital, where such arrangements were required by a mental

Ealing District Health Authority, ex parte Fox [1993] 3 All ER 170 (QBD) Read More »