I work for a team providing benefits advice to people receiving Home Care. In most cases people are usually better off if they obtain further benefits even after taking into consideration the change in the Home Care charge. There are cases, usually involving couples, where they are better off by not maximising their benefits because of the increase in the charge. These cases usually involve situations where a couple have a choice of receiving a single or double Severe Disability Premium or Carers Allowance (which would give a Carers Premium).

At present there is some uncertainty about whether our job is only to advise about the best benefit outcome (regardless of the charge) or if we should also advise people about the various benefit options they may have together with details of the resulting charge.

Paragraph 66 of the “Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other Non-residential Social Services” deals with this issue however we have different interpretations about its meaning.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/06/74/50/04067450.pdf

How do other welfare rights advisers deal with these types of cases.

Has there been any caselaw on this.

We have a policy of advising clients on all their options relating to benefit entitlement - including better off calculations, leaving them to subsequently decide their best course of action: after all the welfare of our clients is our first consideration.

We have had clients in the past who, after completing numerous claim forms are no better off financially, once the LA charging sections have gotten hold of the case. If ever LA's decide to start looking at notional income then that's when the problem will start.....

I agree that the best response is to present the applicant with the facts, in the form of a better-off calaculation if appropriate. It goes against the spirit of the Fairer Charging Guidance to force a choice that may be in the best interests of the Local Authority onto the applicant. That, I beleive, is the intention of para 66 of the FC Guidance.

As a rule of thumb I would always err towards income maximisation where the cost of the service isn't high (i.e. even if the claimant pays the full cost of the service, they still come out 'ahead'). Where the service cost is high, as it will be in many supported housing schemes, no amount of maximisation will ever benefit anybody other than the Local Authority. The service user will be left with the same protected amount under Fairer Charging, being unlikely to be able to afford to pay the full service cost. The cases referred to by the poster are likely to be the ones that fall between these extremes. Clearly service cost and charges need to be an important factor in Welfare Rights advice to Home Care users.

At a time when LAs are strapped for cash, future funding for Welfare Rights services looks increasingly likely to depend on our ability to maximise income from charges. The traditional 'champion of the people' role of the Local Authority WRO is becoming harder and harder to justify to our paymasters. I sense we're increasingly seen as an uneccessary luxury - a kind of deluxe Financial Assessment Officer, more likely to be an obstruction than a fundraiser.

Maybe it's time to reinforce the intentions of para 66 and campaign for increased take-up of disability disregards under Fairer Charging? Good Welfare Rights work, or the signing of our own death warrants?

There are two arguments that can be used - one is justification for the continued existance of WR within Unitary Authorities - i.e there is a legal obligation for them to provide Benefits advice to their service users...

The other is the cost of actually administering the charges - I have heard from various sources that in many cases it cost more to operate a charging system than not to...

As far as future WR provision is concerned, it is those who work for District and Borough Councils and for the independent organisations who at at most risk - local second tier Authorities don't have a legal obligation to provide the service, and the likes of CAB etc are at the mercy of LA funding policies.

A good example can be found in Peterborough where from next April the City Council is cutting their funding by 50% with the loss of most of their specialist workers: no politics involved, a purely financial exercise.

thanks for the comments. If the above views seem to indicate that the guidance wants LA's to be upfront about a persons benefit options together with the resulting Home Care charge does that mean that Finance sections have to liase with the Welfare Rights Sections to tell them what the Home Care charge should be in each scenaio. This information should be presented to the service-user before they decide which benefit option to take.

Although Finance sections may not be happy about service-users choosing options which lead to a reduced charge if welfare rights workers do not provide this information then presumably we could leave ourselves open to a complaint because we would have effectively withheld information about the charge when giving benefits advice.

Do any Fairer Charging Teams provide details of the charges when advising people of their benefit options and do they obtain this information from the Finance section.

reiza

I'd say that good practice would be for Fairer Charging Teams to consult Welfare Rights in cases that are complex or ambiguous.

It's probably fair to say that where this doesn't happen, LAs probably aren't acting in the spirit of the guidance, and are potentially open to challenge.

Clearly there remains a role for both sets of workers within the Local Authority framework, unless I'm doing Finance Officers a dis-service by assuming that they aren't Welfare Rights specialists?

Interesting that the provision of Welfare Rights services are not a statutory duty, and that even charging itself is discretionary and governed only by guidance...

There is or should be a standard calculation which finance sections use, which looks at income etc, and at what charges there are depending on the level of service being provided.

I use to have a copy of the calculation, but can't find it at present - no doubt a friendly County Council WR person might be able to let you have a copy.
I would hope that fairer charging teams do advise clients of their options - especially given the title of the teams - failure to do so would be cynical in the extreme.

AS WR advisers, we would be quite rightly be leaving ourselves wide open to complaint if we were to be seen to be witholding information from clients: it's also extremely unethical.

The fairer charging policy is contained in NHS guidance. Post your e-mail address and I'll e-mail you a copy, or I could e-mail it to rightsnet if a few people wanted it.

Do you mean this?

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4117930&chk=PFAhdG

Yeah! Thats the one.

That's the guidance, but the problem in practice is that it allows Local Authorities so much discretion when writing their charging frameworks. That makes it hard for us to talk about the impact of charging nationally, and variations based on post code are common for roughly similar services.

At least it sets a benchmark though for the minimum disposable income a service user is allowed to retain, and it's a big improvement (for many) on the previous system, which worked on a 'make-it-up-as-we-go-along' basis...!

Would suggest you also put this posting on the NAFAO website