Agenda item

The Committee are asked to consider the requisition of the Executive Decision on the Review of Fairer Charging Policy.

The Committee were informed that at its meeting on 11 July 2012, Cabinet had considered a consultation process on the following proposed changes to the Council’s Fairer Charging policy in order to generate additional income/savings of £250k as per the MTFS savings process agreed at Cabinet in July 2011.  There were 3 proposed changes to the policy.

1. Removal of current maximum charge cap in place for users of domiciliary care services
2. Review of Proportion of disposable income chargeable in financial assessments
3. Review of Disability related expenses allowance

The decision was requisitioned for the following reasons:

1. In removing the current maximum charge cap for users of domiciliary care services:

a.      What is the actual cost of services in excess of the cap?

b.      Would users be required to sell their assets to pay for it?

c.      How is the £138,000 saving made up?

2. In removing the 10% discretionary allowance for domiciliary care service:

a.      How many people does this affect?

b.      What are the levels of feed and

c.      What level is the “basic living allowance” set at?

d.      How is the saving £101,429 made up?

3. In reducing the cumulative weekly allowance for expenses linked to individuals’ personal and medical circumstances from £77.45 to £40:

a.      How many users will this affect?

b.      How is this saving of £26,398.39 made up?

Officers explained that the actual cost of the services in excess of the cap was £138,000 per annum. This was made up of the care packages in place, across 21 users who had a cap of £23,500 which equated to the £138,000 per annum. The highest cost of care was £652 a week, which would be an additional £330 a week.

A member stated it would have been useful to have the information on how the 21 users who are above the cap would be affected.  Also raised was how a user could go from £323 to £600 worth of care.  Officers explained that double handed care four times a day would add up, however, if a persons assets dropped below a certain point, then the cost of their contribution would be less. This was only in the consultation process and no final recommendations had been made. Only those with the capital or sufficient income would be charged.

In relation to selling assets, users would not have to sell their homes, only if they had a second home would this however be seen as an asset, relating to home care?  Officers added that often users do not declare their assets but just pay for the care they receive.

Officers stated that the consultation would be with all service users, but specifically would ask how it would affect the 21 with the cap.

Officers explained how the 10% discretionary allowance was worked out, they explained that by removing the 10% it would change the way in which financial assessments were carried out.  If the 10% was removed there would be 1211 users with no charge and 483 users who would be charged, with only 183 users having to pay in excess of £5.  The other alternative would be to look at an option of 5%, the most that any user would pay would be £33.29.

The Committee asked if there were robust checks in place to ensure that customers were receiving the benefits they stated on their application form.  Officers explained that the forms were filled in at the time of an officer visit.  It was a holistic service so also identifies any gaps in benefits.  All evidence was taken at the time of application so there was no verification necessary at a later date.  Financial Assessments followed the Social Work assessment so that financial assistance was in place for users.

A member asked where the figure of £40 had come from in relation to the cumulative weekly allowance for expenses linked to individual personal and medical circumstances.

Officers stated that this had come from a benchmarking exercise that had been carried out.  Some authorities had a figure of £12 a week; therefore it was decided to take a figure between this and the current figure of £77.45 this seemed reasonable.

Officers explained that the consultation, if agreed, would commence in September for 90 days, and would be implemented in April.  There would be information posted out in September, together with face-to-face communications at Day Centres, Drop-in sessions at the Town Hall and visits to the Housebound.  Letters would be specific to the users identifying how the change would affect them. An easy-read version would also be produced and both HAVCO and HAVCARE were on board.

A member asked if work had been done on how users would afford this in six months time, as their financial circumstance could change.  Officers explained that this had been taken into account, and estimates of when clients savings would drop off had been put in place.  Monthly reports were run in-house to identify cost/ capital of clients and financial assessments were done proactively.  The client make-up was changing all the time, however over a number of years the people have changed but not necessarily the figures.

After further discussions, the matter was put to a vote.

The proposal that the requisition be upheld (and therefore that the matter be referred back to Cabinet for further consideration) was LOST (by 4 votes to 2), and it was therefore RESOLVED:

That the requisition of the Cabinet decision held on 11 July 2012 not be upheld.

The voting was as follows:

Councillors Alexander and Barrett voted in favour of upholding the requisition

Councillors Brice-Thompson, Galpin, Thompson and Wells voted against upholding the requisition.