Carers allowance breaches modern slavery laws surely

And given your relative was assessed as having capacity (your reference to the care home in a coma) he couldn’t be forced to accept any more support than he wished.

Lack of carers ij the LA’s books? Why was a personal budget not considered where he or his representative could hire employees from outside of the pool of LA carers? I was a PA for several years - the LA didn’t employ me.

It matches my reality.

And it matches the reality of many listings on the government ombudsman pages.

And it matches the reality of my former employer.

There are legal routes.

It took me over a year of fighting an LA get them to even open stage one of a complaint - two years to get to level 3 panel.

I and many others didn't have to go anywhere near a court.

Im not making it sound like anything.

But Complaints route, then ombudsman usually gains ground.

Not even trying isn’t going to do anything.

It’s shit. It’s wrong. But it’s something

I forgot to mention that prior to having to give up work to care for my disabled child, I was a paralegal.

I have sympathy with the OP. My FiL was repeatedly admitted to hospital (over 12 times in one year) when the LA carers who were popping in to see him (4 x daily) would call ambulances. He'd be released back to his home, and to the LA carers who didn't provide enough cover to keep him safe. I was arguing the legalities, with the support of a family member who's actually a solicitor, for 6 months straight, every other day. Adult Social Care just kept reaffirming that they didn't have any more carers available. They weren't lying. The LA is permanently advertising for carers. Eventually, the matter was 'resolved' when they transferred him to a nursing home while he was in a coma (and didn't have the capacity to refuse). No one expected him to come out of that coma, but he did. He was furious.

I don't know why you're insisting on arguing from a PoV that doesn't match any form of reality.

Now you generally need two incomes to provide for a family. That didn’t used to be the case.

You’re preaching to the choir.

it shouldn’t be this way - but it is.

People either used the correct pathways to challenge or nothing happens.

It’s wrong, but at least there are pathways to resolution. Local Authorities depend on people not exercising their legal rights.

That’s family life though isn’t it. Some cultures wouldn’t bat an eyelid, we wouldn’t have years ago, but now it seems different.

Local authority councils shirk their ‘duties’ all the time though. And then blame spending cuts. I’ve fought with them countless times over their lack of help/support/what they are supposed to be doing. They just come up with excuse after excuse. It’s all very well saying they should be challenged, but when everything in your life has to be challenged, it becomes soul destroying.

I was coming to say this.

providing unpaid care can be so unpredictable. I couldnt work as I need to be on ‘stand by’ for the person I care for.

Speaking as someone who had to fight our case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, you make it sound as if the legal challenges are accessible. They are not. The current backlog of cases demonstrates that they are not. So what you say might be true in an abstract sense, but isn't the concrete experience of everyday life.

It’s really important to still apply if you are drawing your pension. The reason for this is that it can unlock the door to tops ups and other benefits etc. So if you are eligible to claim carers, claim it.

You are penalised once you receive the state pension. Whilst you can apply for carer’s allowance, it will be taken off the state pension despite still being a full time carer. So in effect, you are working full time for free.

Same here. I planned for all my children to be able to go to school, not for one of them to be in intensive care once every 3 months for weeks at a time, and then at home recuperating. Perhaps I was foolish and all family planning should take into account the absolute unthinkable.

I believe Carers Allowance, or Invalid Care Allowance as it was first called when it was introduced in 1976, relied on two things:

Firstly, at that time disability was characterised by the medical model, and a huge percentage of physical disabilities were either the result of service during WW2 or industrial accidents. Ex-servicemen received other benefits, industrial accidents received compensation. With an average male life expectancy in the UK in 1976 of 72 years, Invalid Care Allowance was seen as a 'stop gap' or a 'top up'.

Secondly, institutionalisation - those with learning difficulties or mental health issues were routinely segregated from the general population and had limited access to education and / or employment. Put bluntly, they didn't need as much support as they were being effectively warehoused.

In other words, there was no expectation, in 1976, that what would evolve into Carers Allowance would be replacing statutory services or benefits. Over a period of years, since the mid-80s, successive governments have outsourced what should be formal care (i.e. provided by the NHS or Social Services) into informal arrangements (i.e. so provided by families). This has saved our welfare system £billions at the expense of some individuals. I do believe this represents a significant case for discrimination.

I can see some arguing the case in terms of disabled children. It should be noted in the case of children that the state are responsible for providing education and, where possible, that means those children are at school for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 39 weeks of the year. Yes, under those terms, the 'top up' can appear reasonable. Where it falls apart is when the children aren't at school (see above re: intensive care) or where we're dealing with an adult / not a child. Providing evening / school holiday care is dramatically different to providing 24/7 365 care. However, there seems to be no distinction in law / benefit.

As I say, I don't believe there is, or ever has been, any sort of proper conversation around the impact of this.

There are advocates out there to help.

I know it’s shit. I’ve been there.

But if LA’s are shirking theif statutory duties there are mechanisms to challenge - the ombudsman pages are chock full of people challenging and winning.

I work in a local authority in a hospital based team. Before that I was a PA to a family with care and support needs who had their care needs met - by holding the local authority to account. And I’ve always been an autism mum.

The law is there for a reason. The routes to have that law upheld (complaints, ombudsman, judicial review) are there for a reason.

There are routes to challenge - people need to use them.

I am probably being thick here, but as I understand it , carers allowance is paid for providing 35+hours per week full-time care to a family member.

If that is the case, why are carers then restricted in what they do for the other 133 hours in a week?

Unrealistic , I know , but that carer, allowing for sleeping, eating etc, potentially may be able to work more than 18 hours per week, earning more than £196 per week.

As I say, I may be obtuse, but the conditions around this allowance make no sense to me.

And who has the energy for that, when you're caring ?

Or is the implication that because "something" is available, it's the fault of the carer and/or cared for not accessing them ?

There's the world of the should, and the world of the is, and they aren't always in step.

The point is though that your child would receive that money even if you worked full time on £80k a year (for example), as it’s to cover their needs over and above that of a non disabled child. It doesn’t top up your carers allowance to give you a reasonable hourly wage.

https://www.scope.org.uk/advice-and-support/challenging-complaining-social-care-needs-assessment

No but it covers som of the costs we would have to pay other wise

Local authorities need to be challenged when they shirk their statutory duties.

I think you may have missed the Birmingham reference ?

They also have a statutory duty to empty the bins, and that's not happened for 6 months.

The magic money tree was never for us. It's for them.

So there was an unsafe discharge?

And in addition the LA allowed your MIL to have her basic human rights breached by neglecting her care needs?

If these things are true you have grounds for complaint.

If local authorities are left unchallenged when they break the law they will continue to break the law.

No many people on carers want to give to work. The are forced into the full time caring role and our of employment by the system.

It’s a benefit, not a wage. Which doesn’t make it less disgusting but that’s how they frame it to get around it.

You forgot to add that the £83 CA do not come with any annual leave, no sick pay, private pension. No nothing.