Carer / Caree : A Partnership ? Ongoing Issues That Effect This Relationship

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
Something I picked up through providing an answer on another thread.

Carer Assessments ... extracted from the guidance provided elsewhere on this site :

Only the person receiving the services can be charged for them. As a carer you cannot be charged for services provided to the person you are looking after, and the person you are looking after cannot be charged for services provided to you as a carer.


Dates back almost 20 years to my days as a lone carer.

If I wanted a break from caring , my mother ( Caree ) would need someone to replace me.

As such . I was told by the LA that charges would be levied as it was my mother needing the replacement care.

Does that no contradict the guidance provided above ?

Break for me ... my needs ... my income then was purely CA and little capital ... and yet , my caree , with income and capital , would be charged.

Seems to cut both ways ?

Almost 20 years ago , have the rules / guidelines changed ?

Again , one of those things we tend to take for granted in CarerLand ... without question.

Time to question an assumption ?

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

The other aspect ... treating each separately ... always a contentious point with me ... a lone carer / caree ... a partnership ... assessments done on an individual basis BUT NEVER as a partnership ( Our joint needs ... combining income to meet joint expenditure ... almost a protocooperation relationship ... one not existing without the other , although one sided ? )

Mentioned on a few occasions when posting on other threads ... nobody came back to me on this.

In essence , more like a husband / wife partnership than a caree with a live in carer ... mother / son.

I argued long and hard on CarerWatch as to this relationship ... even then , difficult for other carers to appreciate the implications.

Following on , an inerlocking thread ... thus use of PIP / AA :

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/support- ... arer-33078

Last bit purely rhetorical but ... any comments would be most welcomed.
Little bit of digging ... seems to answer my question ?

If the replacement care is essentially a homecare service for the person needing care and allows you to take a break, it should be considered a service provided to the cared-for person and should therefore be charged to them, not you as the carer.


Okay ... so , if my mother said at the time ... " Why should I have to pay for him just so he can have a few hours off ? " ... is relevant.

For me , said break would have been " Free " but ... cost would have fallen on my caree.

From a " Partnership " point of view ... pooling monies to meet joint expenditure ... as would any couple do when living together ... straight deduction from the joint pot !

In which case , should not the " Guidance " on Carer Assessments be amended to record this fact.

Husband / wife ... carer / caree ... partnerships.

As it reads now , it implies that charges cannot be levied on the carer but ... through the back door on the caree.

The Guidance does NOT cover the Partnership element which is exactly what a carer / caree relationship is ... one of each , no others involved ?

Husband / wife ... caree / carer ... partnerships.

Assessments ... needs for the caree , separate one for the carer.

Why no JOINT assessment ... it is a Partnership after all , is it not ??????????????

Interconnected thread ... USE OF AA/ PIP MONIES ... also relevant here :

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/support- ... arer-33078


I am waiting for the DWP to respond on that one.
Time to bring this one back to the attention of readers.

Interlocks with the main DIRECT PAYMENTS / AA / PIP ongoing threads.

The relationship between the caree and the carer ... a partnership.

No caree ? No carer !

CarerWatch days ... a decade and more ago.

Floated off the idea of the caree / carer relationship being recognised as a partnership , and put on par with a husband and wife for taxation purposes.

A few changes since then but still achievable.

If ever so recognised , monies passing between the careee and the carer would be treated exactly the same as for a husband and wife.

Marshalling between the two to take advantage of whatever is available under current legislation.

The AA / PIP issue would disappear for starters.

Still leaves the DP issue but that clashes with employment law.

Housing ?

Main area where this issue really kicks in ... both for home owners and social tenants ... especially the latter when it comes to social housing tenancy succession.

Early days as to how much a " Partnership " would work across the spectrum.

One major headache would be the current benefits system ... geared for individual claimants but not " Situation " ones.

Our old Social Wage addressed this situation ... difficult to comprehend an alternative within the current system.

Needs / carer assessments ?

Time for a JOINT assessment ... needs of the partnership with individual needs secondary.

After all , it's does no good addressing the needs of the caree IF the needs of the carer are left swinging in the wind ... including the ludicrous financial element ?

A little difficult to absorb on first reading but ... as I found in CarerWatch days ... a subtle shift in thinking brings you in roughly the same direction ?

As a final thought , the forthcoming Green Paper.

If , and a big IF , current Government thinking is extend into the caree / carer relationship ... CA to disappear , and replaced by DPs to the caree.

The caree then " Employs " the carer , as a worker , thus ending the role of a family carer.

Each caree / carer would be free to negotiate terms with each other ... provided , of course , current employment law is observed.

With a stroke of a pen , a whole new ball game and consistent with the Government's thinking of getting all citizens to either sink or swim ... no more reliance on the State.

As far as the Government is now concerned , it's the carees' problem , not the the State's , in finding social care support.

That was the collective fear expressed by CarerWatch a decade ago in the lead up to the last Carers' Strategy.

Logical but ... dare they even contemplate it ?

2028 ... a caree and his employee ( Former carer ) ... and a shop steward ?
Time to take this one a little forward in line with recent reports / articles.

THE STREET ... my term for roughly half of all family / kinship carers below / at / close to the Official Poverty Line ( New or old definition , numbers about the same ) ... some 3.8 / 3.9 MILLION ... increasing daily.

Assume lone carer / caree ... both under state pension age ... full range of standard benefits and allowances ... no other income ... together under one roof.

The only way many can survive is by COMBINING income to meet their joint expenditure ... caree contributing more as they receive more in benefits than a carer.

Even more urgent as the twin evils of the freezing of the Housing Allowance and rises in Council Tax are truly devastating ... spelt out in length on another thread :

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/support- ... head-34469


As detailed on the main DIRECT PAYMENTS and ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE / PIP threads ... links posted earlier ... NEITHER the DWP NOR the HM Revenue and Customs ( Street names ... DOLEMAN and TAXMAN ) recognise this pooling of resources.

If husband and wife , no problem ... and yet they can also be a caree and carer.

Therein lies conundrum that works to the disadvantage of all within CarerLand.

If there are to be " Priorities " for ALL within CarerLand , the two acid tests for the forthcoming Green " Rizla " Paper ( So named as all the good it will do could be written on the back of one ... jury still out as to whether a standard or king size one will be needed ) are those priories ... INCREASED FINANCES and FREE / AFFORDABLE SUPPORT SERVICES.

Finances ?

Governs everything .... how can anyone buy in support services if there are no monies spare to do so ???

Fairer for carers ?

Dismissed for what it really is ... a classic smoke and mirrors job ... covered under the Carers UK thread :

https://www.carersuk.org/forum/social-a ... rers-34307

For The Street to survive , it is not only essential for the two acid tests to be met , but also a tweeking in the law so as to ensure resources can be pooled ... just like a husband and wife can when they marshall their assets to take advantage of whatever help there is out there ... spare capacity within income tax brackets right through to even placing investments in the other's name to reduce tax liabilities.

A logical solution that will set out the caree / carer relationship for what it actually is ... a partnership.

No caree ?

No carer.

A partnership ... from an arms length relationship to fully fledged protocooperation ... only cannot exist without the other.

Example of the latter ?

One my mother came across ... 83 years old blind mother / 57 years son confined to a wheelchair ... virtually one person , each part of the other.

Local LA's view ?

Happy as one could look after the other , no need to get involved ... !!!

The bog standard NEEDS and CARERS assessments would not work in cases like this one ... only a PARTNERSHIP assessment ... ponder on that ... for a while ... both are carers for each other ... all but joined at the hip.

Be " Nice " to see some feedback , the above can radically change lone carer / carees lives , for the better, by simply tweeking a few things at a minimum cost to the Government agencies.

Lone carer / caree :

Recognised by both the Doleman and Taxman , and in social housing / BTL tenancies , AS A partnership ... same as a husband and wife ???

Following on , and in many cases , a partnership assessment as opposed to separate needs / carer assessments ???

All support organisations , both carer and caree , to adjust their thinking / practices to recognise this relationship ???

Discrimination ... by association ... time to update that to include the partnership element ... discriminate against one , you discriminate against both ... even by positive discrimination ( eg. Public transport ... caree goes free / carer pays ) ???