Care Act 2014 : Should / Could / Would Act 2014 ???

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
104 posts
One question that remains unanswered is :

Who is statutory bound to enforce the provisions of the Care Act ?

If no " Body " , I cannot envisage that it would be for each individual carer to challenge ?

If that proves to be the case then , another fatal flaw would be revealed.

I can foresee any future post mortem on this Act being quietly buried to protect the past reputations of those responsible for this debacle.

In Carerland, there are no rewards for us ... and yet , nice salaries / pensions / honours for those who benefit from our continuing Plight by being seen to do something by the System.
My LA are currently advertising for new SW's starting at over £30,000 a year. For this I, as a council tax payer, expect value for money. As a pensioner caring for my son regularly I get sweet FA!
Acid test.

Think of the millions paid in salaries to all earning a living off CarerLand ... our supporting organisations , LA / DWP employees and academics.

Has our PLIGHT got any easier despite the millions being spent ?

If not , just what is those millions being spent on ?
At long last , some feedback :

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/06/ ... ts-impact/

Service users give mixed verdict on Care Act’s impact.

Survey finds most people don't feel care has improved since the legislation's introduction
By Andy McNicoll on June 28, 2017 in Adults


Most people using social care feel the introduction of the Care Act 2014 has not improved the quality of help they get, a government-commissioned survey suggests.

The poll of 1,100 service users and carers found just 29% felt their care had improved in the first year of the act coming into force. A quarter felt things had got worse.

The Department of Health asked personalisation charity Think Local Act Personal (TLAP) to carry out the research, as a means of gauging the impact of the act since it came into force in April 2015

The results paint a mixed picture. While more than half of respondents (56%) said they were still satisfied with the quality of their support and 69% felt the care they received made a positive difference to their wellbeing, TLAP said other findings raised “major” concerns over how councils are implementing key planks of the Care Act in practice:

Only a quarter of respondents felt councils had frequently listened to their views when drawing up support plans.

Just under half (49%) felt their choices were always or frequently respected.

More than half (51%) found it difficult to access information and advice about care options.

There was “low uptake” of Care Act advocacy, with more than two-thirds of respondents saying they had never been offered an advocate.


Clenton Farquharson, chair of the TLAP board, said the results sent a “clear message” that more needed to be done to embed the act’s principles in practice.

He said: “We particularly need to draw attention to what we describe as the ‘rhetoric vs reality’ gap, between what people with care needs are experiencing, and what council colleagues perceive and say is happening when they work to embed personalisation”.

TLAP warned the findings showed a “marked difference” between council and service user opinions on the act’s implementation. The most recent Local Government Association stocktake – the main official survey of council views on Care Act progress – found 81% felt the Care Act had made a positive difference on practice.


Margaret Willcox, president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, said councils were seeking to offer personalised social care “in a very difficult financial climate”.

She said: “Many local authorities have worked hard in challenging financial circumstances to give people greater choice and control. Despite the growing financial pressures, there is consensus that the principles of personalisation should be supported.

“Individuals should be in charge of their own care and support and have control and choice over the key decisions that affect them. However, despite challenges there are still some excellent local initiatives such as, Barnet, Derby, Shropshire and North East Lincolnshire.”

The association’s latest annual budget survey, published today, reveals the pressure to make significant cuts means just 29% of directors were fully confident they would meet their statutory duties this year. ADASS warned that some savings targets had proved “impossible” to deliver.
Results from 7,000 odd carers ( Roughly 1 in 930 ) ... pages 16 / 17 from the State of Caring 2017 report :

http://www.carersuk.org/for-professiona ... eport-2017

Makes interesting reading if only from the numbers stated.

By contrast , how many of the 6 million do not even know Carers Assessments exist ?
How many of those people have never even seen a social worker

:mrgreen:
As at August 2012 , 92,000+ SWs registered.

Say half in the front line and , probably less than that figure now with the cutbacks.

Best guestimate ?

1 SW for every 175-200 carers .... ?

No wonder nobody puts identifying carers towards the top of the list of priorities ???

Would also explain why no abuses of the Care Act are ever penalised or adequately monitor.

The System and it's supporting circus in action for all to see.

Nothing but smoke and mirrors ....
Worth reporting the latest on the Luke Davey case extracted from the Oxford Mail.

First direct reference to the provisions of the Care Act in a Court of Law.

Apparently , all hinges on the intepretation of " Well being " as so stated in said Act.

Interesting to note the abolition of the Independent Living Fund scheme appears to be the starting point.

Image

An image often speaks louder than mere words ... this is a human being !!!

Without qualification , another case of " Should / could / would " looming ?
A severely disabled man has launched the first Court of Appeal battle of its type following 'savage' cuts in care funding vulnerable people say they are suffering across the country.

Wheelchair users joined a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London as Luke Davey, 41, challenged Oxfordshire County Council's decision to reduce his weekly personal budget by 42 per cent.

Three appeal judges were told Burcot resident Mr Davey, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and is registered blind, faces "a significant risk to his well being" because of the reductions.

The case is being seen as an opportunity to clarify whether provisions of the Care Act 2014 are being properly applied by local authorities.

Mr Davey, who was in court in his wheelchair, says in his case the law is being breached by Oxfordshire council.

Even after he agreed to modifications, his reduced budget is still not enough to fund the team of personal assistants who have cared for him for nearly 20 years, the judges were told.

Critics are blaming the problems severely disabled people report facing on the Government's decision to axe the independent living fund (ILF) which previously enabled thousands of claimants to live independently through ILF money plus assistance from their local authorities.

After the ILF was abolished in 2015, the money and sole responsibility for care funding were transferred to the local authorities.

In court, the judges heard Mr Davey requires assistance with all of his personal care needs and was helped by a team of personal assistants funded by a 24 hours-a-day care package costing £1,651 per week.

The Independent Living Fund provided £730 of that total.

When the ILF closed, Oxfordshire council proposed reducing his personal budget to £950 per week.

Jamie Burton, appearing for Mr Davey, said he had essentially the same team of personal assistants for nearly 20 years who knew him very well and contributed to his sense of well being.

The local authority decided he could spend 6.5 hours alone each day and he could reduce the amount he paid to his carers.

That posed the risk of Mr Davey suffering anxiety when left alone and also losing his care team.

He had since agreed to spend four hours alone and negotiated with his team to accept some, but not all, of the proposed reductions in their terms and conditions of employment.

But this still left a shortfall in his budget and his mother, Jasmine, who is aged 76 and has cancer, was having to fill the gaps in providing his care, said Mr Burton.

Oxfordshire County Council said it would not comment while the case is on-going.
Bad news for Luke Davey and low millions of other carees :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ox ... e-41122234
A disabled man who took his legal fight over cuts to his care to the Court of Appeal has had his case dismissed.

Luke Davey, 41, challenged a ruling upholding Oxfordshire County Council's decision to cut his package by 42%.

Mr Davey, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, argued it threatened his well-being and breached the Care Act.

Campaigners said the case could have led to a landmark ruling, but the appeal judge said the council had not acted unlawfully.

Mr Davey, from Burcot, is registered blind and uses a wheelchair, requires help with all of his personal care needs.

A county council spokesman said: "We will continue to work with Mr Davey and his family to ensure he gets the provision of essential services he needs.

"The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Council's assessment of Mr Davey's care needs and the allocated amount for his personal budget is appropriate and lawful.

"All local authorities who provide adult social care services against a background of financial constraints in the public sector are having to make difficult decisions."


Comment from the Belfast telegraph , most potent :

Critics of the Government say Mr Davey’s case illustrates how disabled people are suffering because ministers axed the independent living fund (ILF) in 2015 but failed to ring-fence sufficient money for the disabled under the new Care Act 2014, which makes cash-strapped local authorities responsible for funding all care needs.


Ring fencing .... a vital ommission from the Act's drafters !!!!

The first major challenge under the provisions of the Care Act 2014.

A black day for low millions.

What now for the Care Act ?

Anyone want to hold their hand up and say ... " We could have done better " ... ?

Perhaps SHOULD instead of COULD in line with most of the wording ?

Try telling that to the low millions !

##################################################################

Not been a good day for those towards the bottom of the pile ?

On way to PO , stopped outside local nursey to witness a ferocious argument between parents and a couple from the nursery.

Felt a little sorry for the nursery trying to explain why they cannot offer 30 hours of free childcare in line with one of the Government's flagship policies.

The answer to that one is outside the remit of this forum.

For the curious amongst our readers , just Google ... 30 HOUR FREE CHILDCARE PROBLEMS ... similar to social care , lack of funding !!!

Then , an ecomonic breakdown of those who will benefit the most !
A little more on the Luke Davey Appeal from the Community Care web site :

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/09/ ... ckage-cut/

Svetlana Kotova, disability justice coordinator at Inclusion London, said the decision was “very disappointing” and illustrated the “devastating impact” of government policy.

She added: “Many people like Luke Davey, who were supported by the Independent Living Fund, had their support packages cut to the bare bone. With those cuts went their independence, choice and control and the opportunity to live a normal life. Today the Court of Appeal confirmed that local authorities can get away with doing this.

“Without adequate levels of support, disabled people are existing not living. This case has destroyed any hopes that the Care Act 2014 will transform our experience of social care.

“It is time the government recognises and urgently addresses the huge crisis in social care, through ensuring adequate funding and the introduction of an appeals system, which would give disabled people a fair chance to challenge the views and decisions of social workers.”


Difficult to see any positive outcomes from this case.

Perhaps we should revise down the projected number to benefit to high four figures upto the end of 2018 against the original projection of 375,000 ?

There again , a touch too optimistic ?

Irony of ironies ... odds on a couple behind this Act being given awards by the Government for their " Sterling " work in the community ????

That would be par for the course in both CarerLand and CareeLand .... ?
104 posts