Day 3: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

Day 3 of the #LBBill Twelve Days of Christmas and we’d like to start with a huge thank you to those of you who have joined the discussion. We’ve seen some edits on the feedback pages here (go ahead, all welcome, add your own comment at the bottom of the document rather than editing other people’s if you prefer). There has also been ongoing discussion on facebook, twitter, the blogposts here and by email. So thank you all.

Please note if you send us other people’s details or contact information we won’t make the blog comments public (but they are all read… thanks Don). Please take the time to explain why your thoughts relate to the Bill or the relevant Clause clearly, what is obvious to you may not be to any other reader. Please also reply on specific clause pages where possible.

Today we move onto Clause 2. We have an audio introduction to the clause with easy-read images:

Clause 2 deals with a very specific problem. We know of cases where a Local Authority or NHS body is refusing to provide a disabled person with the care they need at home on the basis that they could provide the same care more cheaply in a residential setting. We think this is wrong, and we also think the Department for Health would agree with us.

However, not every Local Authority or NHS body seems to accept this, so we think we need the law to spell it out. Clause 2 would prevent the cost of residential care being taken into account at all when deciding what level of care to provide for someone at home. It seems to us this is obviously a good idea. Do you agree? Have we missed something?

2 thoughts on “Day 3: Twelve Days of Christmas #LBBill

  1. Should this be tied in with The Mental Capacity Act and the requirement to make decisions for people (who lack capacity) that are least restrictive?


  2. It is simply not true, that care at home is more expensive, particularly for the autistic.

    In any event, if it were true it is discrimination agst the autistic, as they have a right to live where they choose and illegal under Equality Act.

    We get 125 per week and carers allowance of 70, to look after our daughter would cost 3,ooo per week at least andif as many in a NHS private provision 4,500 For places like Winerbourne.

    Direct payments of only 7,50 per hour are all that are allowed with reclaimed admin fee for support so how can this be more expensive ??.

    Yet, my daughters agency, chosed and paid directly by LA, were allowed to charge £25 per hour, whilst paying the zero hour contract workers used 8.50 per hour.

    This is not about saving money , but about making money out of the autistic. They are cash cows.

    looked after by a sea of itinerent zero hour workers, in independent living units, OFTEN FLATS, no one will rent.

    The CORPORATE CARERS LA themselves, or connected,can claim up to 82,000 per year from the government under the Cronically Sicick and Disabled Act 1980, they can also claim for education until 25, and from the NHS .On top as they act for the autistic, who are deemed to lack capacity, LA can also claim all the autistics benefits, including housing benefit for high rents, mobility etc.

    Read my blog by googling my name and see posts like Rip off education and social care.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s