WESTMINSTER “THERE’S NO MONEY FOR CARE IN SEFTON” MEETING CONTRAVENES “NO MONEY IS NOT AN EXCUSE” HIGH COURT RULING.

SEFTON CARE ASSOCIATION

PRESS RELEASE

May 22, 2012.

WESTMINSTER “THERE’S NO MONEY FOR CARE IN SEFTON” MEETING CONTRAVENES “NO MONEY IS NOT AN EXCUSE” HIGH COURT RULING.

Sefton Care Association (SCA) has been told “there is no money” to pay for the shortfall and backdating of care fees frozen by Sefton Borough Council – in direct contravention of a High Court ruling that says “no money is not an excuse”.

Members of SCA met with Care Minister Paul Burstow, John Pugh MP, Sefton Borough Council Chief Executive Margaret Carney and other officials in Westminster, but before SCA could put its case, the “there’s no money” line was delivered.

“As soon as that was said we realised that not only was our meeting a waste of time, but also that the situation had not been properly researched,” said Dan Lingard of Sefton Care Association.

“As the meeting was conducted under Chatham House Rules, we can’t say who said there was no money – but it was said nevertheless.

“Sefton Council has already defied a High Court ruling and told care home owners and the borough’s vulnerable that it will be freezing care fees for both 2011/12 and 2012/13, a dispute which led to SCA committee members being invited to Westminster to discuss the issue.

“But it’s clear there was no intention of arriving at any sort of a conclusion in that meeting which would be of any benefit to people needing care, or care home owners and operators – especially when we were told ‘there’s no money’.

“But what people in the meeting seemed to have lost sight of is that the High Court ruling in November 2011 said that lack of resources is no excuse for not fulfilling care obligations.”

In paragraph 90 of the ruling, His Honour Judge Raynor QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, quoted an earlier precedent and ruling: “In paragraph 46(2) of his judgment in the Forest Care Home case, Hickinbottom J stated: ‘In deciding whether a person is in need of care and accommodation, an authority is entitled to have regard to its own limited financial resources. However, having set that threshold and found that a particular person surpasses it, an authority is under an obligation to provide care and accommodation in fulfilment of its section 21 obligations (under the National Assistance 1948), which is a specific duty on the authority owed to an individual, not a target duty: lack of resources is no excuse for non-fulfilment of that obligation…’

“The Claimants (Sefton Care Association) submit that the evidence in this case shows that the decision to freeze fees was taken for budgetary reasons alone or at least to an improper extent, without there being any attempt to balance other factors against the need for financial savings.”

Dan Lingard said: “In other words, no money is not an excuse – care obligations must be fulfilled, and they are not being fulfilled by a freeze in care fees, which, given inflation and other factors, means that not only have care fees been frozen – they’ve actually fallen.”

Judge Raynor ruled that Sefton Council should not have frozen 2011/2012 payment levels to elderly people in care in the borough, and that it did not pay due regard to the actual cost of care in making its unilateral decision. He directed Sefton Council to enter into consultation with local care homes, and to reassess care payments for the 2011/2012 financial year – and establish the actual cost of care by which care fee rates could be set.

But Sefton Council not only ignored the February 9, 2012 deadline to respond, it has also said it will freeze care fees retrospectively, and for the 2012/13 financial year as well – meaning that care fees have been static despite the Retail Prices Index rising nearly 12% in the three years since care fees were last increased.

Ends

For further information:

Iain Macauley 07788 978800

im@pressrelations.co.uk

@SeftonCareAssn

SEFTON COUNCIL IGNORES HIGH COURT RULING – AND FREEZES CARE FEES FOR A THIRD YEAR

SEFTON CARE ASSOCIATION

PRESS RELEASE

May 8, 2012.

SEFTON COUNCIL IGNORES HIGH COURT RULING – AND FREEZES CARE FEES FOR A THIRD YEAR.

Sefton Council has defied a High Court ruling and told care home owners and the borough’s vulnerable that it will be freezing care fees for both 2011/12 and 2012/13.

Now Sefton Care Association says that as many as 50% of care homes in the borough may be forced to close, generating massive worry and uncertainty for the families of the area’s frail and vulnerable.

Senior council officers dropped the bombshell to care home owners despite a judge telling the local authority in November 2011 that it must make a decision on reassessment of care fees paid to the most vulnerable people by February 9, 2012.

In a Judicial Review in the High Court in Manchester, His Honour Judge Raynor QC ruled that Sefton Council should not have frozen 2011/2012 payment levels to elderly people in care in the borough, and that it did not pay due regard to the actual cost of care in making its unilateral decision. He directed Sefton Council to enter into consultation with local care homes, and to reassess care payments for the 2011/2012 financial year – and establish the actual cost of care by which care fee rates could be set.

But Sefton council says it will freeze care fees retrospectively, and for the 2012/13 financial year as well – meaning that care fees have been static despite the Retail Prices Index rising nearly 12% in the three years since care fees were last increased.

Sefton Care Association, which represents a large proportion of care homes in the borough, says the implications are massive – not just locally, but potentially nationally as a care-fee-freeze precedent has been effectively set, with local authorities likely to stump up the cost of more Judicial Reviews rather than find the cash to increase care fees. Legal bills for a Judicial Review are a fraction of the shortfall in care fees.

Council officers have also told care home owners that an independent report into the cost of care in Sefton, commissioned by Sefton Care Association and carried out by highly-respected research organisation Laing & Buisson, was “deficient” and that council officials “questioned the significance and reliability of the report”.

But Peter Moore of Sefton Council also then told care home owners that “the report provides more data than our own spread sheet did”.

However, Mark Gilbert of Sefton Care Association, said: “Laing & Buisson (L&B) is the foremost research organisation in the sector, recognised by all levels of government – up to and including ministerial level – as being a provider of accurate, independent and unbiased research.

“The key issues are not just the cost of care, but also homes gaining a reasonable return on capital investment so enabling essential maintenance and upgrading of property and equipment essential for the wellbeing of elderly residents.

“There’s a big gap between the cost of providing care and the level of funds Sefton Council currently allocates: families and those in care are struggling to afford the shortfall between Sefton’s current funding provision level, and the cost of care – care homes are doing everything in their power to bring costs down.

“L&B provided information for four categories of care home client support. Typically, nursing care for a frail older person – many of whom require 24/7 support – has, according to L&B, an actual weekly cost of £626, or £699 if we include a 13% return to cover the cost of maintenance and improvement of the care home. But Sefton Council’s currently frozen weekly care fee rate is £510. It is down to the individual client or their family to make up the difference; care home owners have reached a point where there is simply nothing else to cut.”

Ends

For further information:

Iain Macauley

07788 978800

im@pressrelations.co.uk

CARE CRISIS: SEFTON COUNCIL’S OPPORTUNITY OF 1,600 LIFETIMES

SEFTON CARE ASSOCIATION

PRESS RELEASE

January 31, 2012.

CARE CRISIS: SEFTON COUNCIL’S OPPORTUNITY OF 1,600 LIFETIMES.

Sefton Council has the opportunity of 1,600 lifetimes to be the first local authority in the country to properly assess and fund care for the most vulnerable members of society.

That’s the view of Sefton Care Association, which represents a large proportion of care homes in the borough, following a High Court ruling which directed the council to establish the actual cost of care for the elderly in the area.

The opportunity arises following a Judicial Review in the High Court in Manchester in November 2011 in which His Honour Judge Raynor QC ruled that Sefton Council - a typical middle-sized authority - should not have frozen 2011/2012 payment levels to 1,600 elderly people in care in the borough, and that it did not pay due regard to the actual cost of covering care in making its unilateral decision.

He then directed Sefton Council to reassess care payments for the 2011/2012 financial year – but Sefton Care Association sees an opportunity for the council to set a standard and precedent for the rest of the country’s social care budget-holding authorities, not just retrospectively, but also as budget-setting deadlines approach for 2012/2013.

“Those needing care have not had one single positive word of certainty on care and support for as far back as most of us can remember; this is an opportunity for one local authority to change the prioritisation of care provision forever, and get itself a place in history,” said Mark Gilbert, a member of the executive committee of Sefton Care Association.

“Sefton Care Association has brought in Laing and Buisson – a nationally recognised research organisation - which will provide an independent report into the cost of providing care in the borough, a move which the council has not resisted. The key issues are not solely the cost of care, but also homes gaining a reasonable return on capital investment so enabling essential maintenance and upgrading of property and equipment.

“Sefton families with elderly relatives in care, as well as carers and care home operators in the borough, have been appealing to local councillors to reverse the local authority’s stance on paying for care in the area. This is a great opportunity for funding to be assessed in a sensible fashion, and provided at a realistic level.”

Dan Lingard, chairman of Sefton Care Association, added: “There’s a big gap between the cost of providing care and the level of funds Sefton Council currently allocates: families and those in care are struggling to afford the shortfall between Sefton’s current funding provision level, and the cost of care – and the care homes are doing everything in their power to bring costs down. But they’ve reached a point where there is nothing else to cut.

“Sefton Council currently pays a maximum of £510 a week towards funding of nursing care for an individual, but the indications are that the actual cost is in the region of £600 a week. Currently, individuals – many with dementia - and their families have to fund that shortfall, which most would agree is not an acceptable state of affairs.”

Ends

For further information:

Iain Macauley

07788 978800

im@pressrelations.co.uk

@Press_Relations

CARE CRISIS: GOVERNMENT REDEFINES “URGENT PRIORITY” SAYS OVER-50S GROUP SAGA.

SAGA

QUOTES

January 3, 2012.

CARE CRISIS: GOVERNMENT REDEFINES “URGENT PRIORITY” SAYS OVER-50S GROUP SAGA.

Commenting on the letter in the Daily Telegraph highlighting the impending care crisis, Saga's head of communications, Paul Green said:

“The delays in social care reform are provoking a critical condition affecting both the care system and the NHS.

“The government says it is an ‘urgent priority’, but it seems to have redefined both words. Coalition Ministers and Shadows alike have been saying it is an urgent priority since well before the 2010 General Election. The credibility of each and every politician hiding behind that faux furrowed-brow statement falls with each utterance.

“‘Urgent priority’ means immediate identification of a problem, immediate proposal of a solution, and immediate implementation of that solution. We’ve seen it with almost-instant changes in gun law and youth unemployment policy, and breast implants could well become the next health issue to be fast-tracked.

“Each of those affects far fewer people – so it remains an utter mystery why an issue affecting not just individuals but their families too, every single one of which is up against a mortal deadline, warrants a different and more sedate definition of ‘urgent priority’.

“Andrew Dilnot has provided some workable and realistic proposals for care funding and support, but that the government has barely uttered his name since July makes us fear for the mortality of those proposals.

“We fear further delay, we fear a damp squib. The tone of Mr Burstow in his statement that plans to change the system will be announced in the spring suggests the government may not consider the care issue to be either ‘urgent’ or ‘a priority’.

"2012 must be a year of action not of delay." Ends

For further information:

Saga Press Office
01303 771529.

www.saga.co.uk

Iain Macauley
im@pressrelations.co.uk
07788 978800

LEGAL TEAMS SCRAMBLED ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS HIGH COURT RULES COUNCIL CARE FEE FREEZES ARE UNLAWFUL.

DR ROS ALTMANN

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, SAGA

@SagaRosAltmann

QUOTES.

November 9, 2011.

LEGAL TEAMS SCRAMBLED ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS HIGH COURT RULES COUNCIL CARE FEE FREEZES ARE UNLAWFUL.

Dr Ros Altmann, Director-General of over-50s group Saga, commenting on the ruling today, November 9, 2011, in the High Court that Sefton Council’s decision to freeze fees for people needing care in the borough is unlawful:

“I expect many local authorities have been taken aback by this ruling, and quite a few legal and financial teams scrambled to assess what could be a massive impact upon the way councils fund care for older people, and how this ruling could reach far and wide.

“Once again the old and vulnerable are in the news as being on the receiving end of care and support shortfalls - but on this occasion their representatives have bitten back and bitten hard.

“Rather than rising to the challenge of funding the extra care needs of our ageing population, local authorities are continually cutting the care needs they will cover, leaving frail older people to fend for themselves - even freezing funding in the face of significant cost rises. This is an outrage and has rightly been declared illegal.

“In its ruling today that it is unlawful for local authorities to freeze care funding in this way purely to cut its own costs and without regard to the actual cost of providing care, the High Court has certainly put the cat among the pigeons. The flawed funding system of social care in England is being brutally exposed and the impact of local authority cuts and lack of long term funding is leaving increasing numbers of vulnerable older people without adequate care.

“The problem is one that has been highlighted so many times recently and stems from the fundamental fact that social care is the poor relation in our health system - and is not integrated with the NHS. Social care is largely run and funded by local authorities, whose budgets are being squeezed as never before, even while demand for care is rising inexorably year on year.

“But that leaves us with the underlying problem that local authorities do not have enough money to pay for proper care and, while resources are all focussed on the NHS, care is being neglected - and thus those needing care are also neglected.

“When will we wake up to the challenges and threats of such severe care underfunding?

“We need a radical overhaul of the whole system and the Dilnot review sets out a credible framework for action. This must include ringfencing public funding, better integration between NHS and social care, investment in prevention and early intervention, as well as an end to across-the-board care cutbacks by local authorities.

“Inadequate social care can be just as life-threatening as withholding medical care, especially for our increasing numbers of older people, yet somehow public money places all the emphasis on just one part of the picture.”

Ends

For further information:

Saga Press Office
01303 771529.

www.saga.co.uk

Iain Macauley
im@pressrelations.co.uk
07788 978800