Care fees: who should be paying the bills?
By John Harrison - 11/07/2008
For most people, the harsh reality of the financial implications of admittance to care comes as a total shock - and even more so to their families. Costs for a placement in some parts of the country are now approaching £1,000 per week, and for those unfortunate enough to have assets in excess of the miserly threshold figure, their future finances and security are bleak.
After many years I am no longer surprised by the tricks and abuses that are employed by some “authorities” in order to extract money from those unable to help themselves. Indeed the very people who are supposed to be of assistance are the ones more guilty of gross incompetence and of inflicting the cruellest injustices. The question is - just how low has our society stooped? One case comes to mind which is outstanding for all the wrong reasons...
In late 1998 “Sarah”, from London and aged 69, became incapable of looking after herself. Despite her relatively young age, social services decided that she would have to go into a care home due to her level of self neglect and dementia. Sarah had “no known family”, and as she was incapable of administering her own financial affairs, the Director of Social Services of her local council decided to apply to the Public Guardianship Office to be appointed Sarah’s receiver.
Time passed, and by the summer of 2000 the pressing task for the receiver appeared to be the collection of Sarah’s assets in order to make payment of the arrears of care home fees that the council had paid. Less than four years later Sarah died and during this time the Director of Social Services used her money to pay the care home fees, which involved arranging the sale of Sarah’s home.
As the Council were not aware of any blood relatives (even though the Health Authority had notes on their file on the subject) they duly informed the Treasury solicitor’s office, because in the absence of blood relatives all assets - or rather what was left of them in this case - go to the Crown.
The Treasury solicitor’s office placed advertisements seeking family members - which are passed to firms of genealogists who then become involved. If family members are found, details of the inheritance can be disclosed to them in return for a 35% commission finders fee. Over the next couple of years it was discovered that Sarah had a large number of distant blood relatives located around the world.
Happily, the genealogists did not get it all their own way as some family members refused to pay the commission but instead followed their own enquiries into what had happened to Sarah and her assets. Two family members applied to the Probate Registry for a Grant of Letters of Administration as next of kin. It was duly issued, which then gave them legal authority to deal with the administration of Sarah’s estate.
In 2006 the monies held by the Treasury solicitor were recovered - but as details of the rather complicated nature of the estate developed I was consulted about its administration. My first thought was to ask about Sarah’s financial history. Armed with a grant of representation I was able to obtain her original medical certificate and copies of her annual accounts filed by the Director of Social Services - which detailed that £90,000 of Sarah’s money had paid to the care home.
But Sarah’s mental health alone suggested that she should have been fully funded by the NHS.
I expressed my concern that the Director of Social Services had been appointed as Sarah’s receiver when there was a clear conflict of interest as a result of the Council’s legal and financial obligations when it comes to people placed in care. Matters progressed, and a claim was duly lodged with the NHS for a refund of the £90,000 care fees that had been paid. After a further 12 months the claim was accepted in full - thereby confirming that Sarah’s care fees should have been paid from the outset by the NHS. A full refund plus interest was to be made to the estate.
This raises several matters. Firstly, even though the council were supposed to be looking after Sarah’s interests, they did not even ask the NHS about payment of the care costs. Secondly, on the original application by the Council to the Court, the Court did not ask the council why they had not made enquires about the NHS paying the care fees. Thirdly, on each yearly submission to the court of the accounts, the Court did not ask why Sarah was still being charged for her care.
Finally, following Sarah’s death, why did the Treasury solicitor’s office not ask the NHS about the care fees (as they collected all of Sarah’s other remaining assets), and how could the Court not see the conflict of interest by the Director of Social Services?
Something is therefore seriously wrong with the system - and to say that Sarah had been let down when she was most vulnerable is a gross understatement. Of course most of Sarah’s problems would have been avoided in the first place if she had made a will.
But that is a topic for another month ...
To contact John Harrison directly call 0191 262 5955, or email jharrison@tynesidelegalservices.co.uk. To find out about “The Layman’s Guide to the avoidance of care charges” visit www.jhpub.co.uk. Alternatively write to Jayne Warren at the Mature Times.