…in which we talk about whether top-ups can ever be the solution to the lack of funding from central government, or whether they are unlawful unless they are for WANTS and not needs that the council is obliged to fund, or has chosen to fund for best value purposes, in the personal budget for the individual.
It’s about the fact that Stoke City has used top-ups as a reason (a reason they did not mention last time round) for councillors being confident that sticking to 1.4% will not affect the market – the market that the council relies on for the delivery of its own absolute and enforceable statutory duty to meet eligible assessed needs.
We think it makes the second time around offer from the Counicl, unlawful, in terms of public law principles and established rules about top-ups. Top-ups need to relate to environmental advantages linked to the location or architecture of the building in which care is being bought in one single integrated contract together with the accommodation in question. Or personal extras, potentially, but not aspects of the individual’s needs which clearly arise from their condition or illness or disability, such as dependency tool scores!
The recording is free to all subscribers, and this is the best way we can think of to keep the flow of information and analysis for providers coming, right now.
So for clarity, please note that what we’re really asking you to purchase here for a one-off £30.00, is a subscription to our Alert Service for one year. You can read more about it on that link, there, but for now we are just anxious to get the recording out to the provider sector.
After you have completed your purchase you will receive a confirmation email with the next steps to access both your recording, and how to access the Alert Service by email or whatsapp, via one of three like-minded Groups of other subscribers, where you can engage in lively chat strings.