CHAPTER 11
Financial matters
11.1Financial assessments and charges 11.5What charges may cover Charging the cost of meeting needs Charging the cost of meeting needs and making arrangements
11.8Services for which no charge may be made 11.10Financial assessments The ‘financial limits’ and their effect Protected income ‘Deemed’ and ‘light touch’ financial assessments Personal injury awards Deprivations of capital Financial assessments and personal budgets
11.27Security, recovery and deferred payments 11.27The scheme in outline When the local authority must enter into a deferred payment agreement When the local authority may enter into a deferred payment agreement The machinery
11.53Complaints/appeals about financial matters 11.55The cap on care costs and associated means-testing Cases
Charging: residential accommodation cases
11.59Yule v South Lanarkshire Council (No 2) (2001) 4 CCLR 383, CSIH A local authority had to consider whether all the circumstances justified the inference that a person had deliberately deprived themselves of an asset in order to avoid having to pay care charges and it was only necessary that the purpose of avoiding having to pay care charges was a significant part of the purpose
11.60R (Beeson) v Dorset CC [2001] EWHC 981 (Admin), (2002) 5 CCLR 5, QBD The test was a subjective one: did the applicant ‘deliberately’ deprive themselves of assets, ‘knowing’ that that they might receive care services for which they might have to pay?
11.61Robertson v Fife Council [2002] UKHL 35, (2002) 5 CCLR 543 The availability of notional capital did not negate the existence of a need that was required to be met
11.62R (Kelly) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2004] EWHC 325 (Admin), (2004) 7 CCLR 542 A secure tenant’s right to buy discount counted as a contribution towards the purchase price, the presumption of a resulting trust applied and the local authority was entitled to place a caution on the register and levy a charge
11.63Derbyshire CC v Akrill [2005] EWCA Civ 308, (2005) 8 CCLR 173 A person is in general entitled to raise public law issues in defence of a claim for care charges
11.64Jones v Powys Local Health Board and Neath Port Talbot Local Health Board [2008] EWHC 2562 (Admin), (2009) 12 CCLR 68 It was an abuse of process to defend an action for the recovery of care home charges on the basis that the resident was entitled to NHS Continuing Healthcare when that issue had been adversely determined administratively and not challenged by way of judicial review
11.65DM v Doncaster MBC [2012] EWHC 3652 (Admin), (2012) 15 CCLR 128 Local authorities were required to charge for care home accommodation, even where the resident was detained in such accommodation by virtue of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
11.66Aster Healthcare Ltd v Estate of Mohammed Shafi [2014] EWCA Civ 1350, (2014) 17 CCLR 419 A local authority which places a person in a care home is contractually liable for the fees until an effective supervening event
Charging: other services
11.67Avon CC v Hooper and Bristol and District Health Authority (1997–8) 1 CCLR 366, CA An indemnity was a financial resource for the purposes of means-testing
11.68R v Powys CC ex p Hambidge (No 2) (1999) 2 CCLR 460, QBD There was no duty to consult before amending a charging policy
11.69R v Powys CC ex p Hambidge (2000) 3 CCLR 231, CA It is not necessarily discrimination to levy increased charges on persons in receipt of disability benefits
11.70R (Carton) v Coventry CC (2001) 4 CCLR 41, QBD Consultation on a changed charging scheme had been unfair and the resultant scheme irrational
11.71R (Stephenson) v Stockton-on-Tees [2004] EWHC 2228 (Admin), (2004) 7 CCLR 459 It was not irrational to decline to treat as expenditure for means-testing purposes sums paid to a family carer
11.72R (Spink) v Wandsworth LBC [2005] EWCA Civ 302, (2005) 8 CCLR 272 Local authorities were entitled to charge for service provided to disabled children under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and to take into account parental resources
11.73R (BG) v Medway Council [2005] EWHC 1932 (Admin), (2005) 8 CCLR 448 It was lawful to provide assistance under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and to attach rational conditions to the loan
11.74R (Stephenson) v Stockton-on-Tees [2005] EWCA Civ 960, (2005) 8 CCLR 517 It was rational in general to disregard sums paid to family carers, for means-testing, but the policy had been applied too inflexibly in this case
11.75R (B) v Cornwall CC [2010] EWCA Civ 55, (2010) 13 CCLR 117 A fundamentally flawed financial assessment was liable to quashed irrespective of whether the local authority could then make a retrospective assessment (though it probably could)