What is going on in this house?

One of the strange ironies about adult care is that there are plenty of bog standard residential care homes for people with severe LD

But for people who need some sort of protection either from them selves or to protect society from them, either by way of ASD, MH issues, where they're not sectionable but do need detainment and havent committed the sort of crime that will get them imprisoned for life, there is no where to put them.

So someone with ASD to the degree there are high levels of self neglect, its not a 'treatable' MH condition so sectioning isnt appropriate, where does that person live?

The 'institutions' of old would have held them, but they dont exist anymore. So these sort of bespoke arrangements have to be made.

LD care homes wouldnt accept a referral for someone with EUPD for example, or someone who has other PD/ASD without LD. And the LD element has to be really significant as many clients also have some degree of learning need.

I agree that it's reasonable to be curious. If the property has been subject to a 'change of use', say from a residential home to a care home, halfway house or assisted living facility, that almost certainly required planning permission, which is a matter of public record and you should be able to find it on your council website.

Yes he died in 1977. However there have been thousands of conspiracy theories that he faked it because he was fed up of being famous. If he was living next door to thd op he'd be 91 so not fitting the description of the neighbour

Then keep those dangerous people in a secure wing in solitary confinement. They are a danger to their carers as well. The most suitable, safe and appropriate setting isn't a house in a residential area which is run and paid for exclusively for them for life. It's just not a justifiable expense. They aren't being rehabilitated, they are being 'managed' for damage limitation only.

If their level of behaviour is such that they are a constant danger to everyone around them and their autism and/or limited intellectual function means that will not change or improve, then as sad as that is, they need a secure psychiatric hospital type environment with limited physical access to other people.

No we dont at all, where do you get that from??!!!

If a child has to be placed out of area, thats on the LA placing the child, and the poor SW who has to travel hundreds of miles to go and visit and do meetings.

I worked for years in commissioning, the general public would be shocked by the eye watering amounts care costs but we would always go for the most cost effective but least restrictive option for the patient.
There are also legal aspects, court of protection directives to consider etc.
LD/Autisim/Acquired Brain Injury are always high cost packages due to the level of support/nursing care needed

That can and often is done in a secure hospital type facility. And would be vastly cheaper and more effective than this nonsense.

I thought he died?

I generally hate nosey neighbours and definitely think people should mind their business more.

But I think your question is valid and it’s reasonable to ask MN, where some posters be more experienced in this area, what the reasons may be.

I’m not sure why you’re getting such rude replies.

And not necessarily much cheaper in some circumstances, or facilities won’t take people they can’t manage so a suitable placement may not be available. Local authorities are conscious of every penny these days so they won’t have done this lightly.

@Neighbourmystery do you know for sure that the NHS trust bought the property? Or are you assuming that because the person living there has live in carers? I just am curious as it’s possible that my friends neighbours assume that the NHS/Tax payer paid for the house and renovations to where she lives, but that isn’t the case, she paid for it herself from money awarded to her for extreme medical negligence.
Just a possibility.

residential care settings are not appropriate for all people. care settings have a duty of care which includes the other patients not being put in harms way. If you had a relative who was in a care setting would you be ok with someone who is volatile and dangerous to be around them? Some people’s disabilities mean that a group setting puts everyone at risk.

A friend of mine suffered a serious medical error that almost killed her. She spent 5 years in a rehabilitation unit that is nowhere near where she is from but was the only place that does this kind of rehab, when she was discharged she had to stay in that area because that’s where all her medical team are. She won a pretty hefty pay out from the NHS and she bought a house with it, she lives there with carers that come in/live in her annex. So she actually bought and paid for the extensive renovations to her house herself. It could be something along these lines.
A person can look able bodied and still have extensive care physical care needs btw. Being able to walk around a garden doesn’t mean he doesn’t have physical disabilities,

You could ring the doorbell and when one of the "carers" answers, flash a fake ID and say "HQ sent me - they want him interviewed, just a short survey - it'll only take me 10 minutes."

Then, sounding very official but confidential, ask him some carefully selected questions about his stay there, is everything to his satisfaction, any suggestions etc., typing it all into your laptop.

Casually include the question, "Have you been informed exactly as to why you are staying here, and can you repeat that to me?"

A few more questions then thank him for his co-operation, thank the staff and be on your way, and report back to Mumsnet.

It's not "normal" but does happen. The cost aspect, well we try not to put people in hospitals anymore for life. I understand cost is an element, but if someone needs something, they need it. What about people who need very expensive medicines? Or intensive care? Or children who require prosthesis changes as they grow? Or other very expensive treatment etc?

Sounds like a man who has a care package. I dont know about the NHS trust being so far away but weve had a supported living facility for one person on our street. Was never any trouble. He always had 2 carers. Young man also, he was physically fit but had pretty severe behavioural issues.
He would fairly often sit outside my house and we would have a chat sometimes. His carers would always be pretty close but he was never a problem.
One day I did go out and he was laid in the middle of the road...but he was calm, just needed to collect himself he said. He told me that my kid was like him.

I was bloody curious too when he first moved in.

Ok so this explains the likely scenario very well and answers by questions above. Personally I think it's outrageous that all of those resources should go into caring for ONE person in a bespoke, individual setting like that. If he needed that level of care constantly he should have been in a larger, secure residential facility. No wonder the NHS is fucked in spite of the increasingly insane amounts of money pumped into it, if this is how we spend it.

What kind of 'additional care' could possibly involve an NHS trust buying a house and renovating it, putting privacy film over all the windows, having keypad access, an extension, and four carers coming and going for ONE man?

I have no idea if this sort of thing is normal but if it is then I'd like to know how/why because it seems like an outrageously over the top expense to me. How can they justify that sort of cost to the tax payer for one person?

@Neighbourmystery if you would like to know, I suggest you just get chatting to the carers. They’ll spill the beans.

Unfortunately, how you describe the actions of the 'carers' at this facility are no-where isolated practices. People take on these roles because at the beginning there were many such adverts in their local paper etc. and some will have probably considered it to be an easy job, with probably little they need to do concerning the service user's personal care.

However, whether the intention of the new employee was to just get what they presumed would be an "easy' job, or if they did so because they have a genuine care for less fortunate individuals, the outcome is often sadly, but also understandably in many cases, that the carers get worn down, and worn out, by the many demands both physical and mental that the carer has to deal with daily. In fact, the more caring the carer is, the more likely they are to crumble sooner rather than later.

My own opinion is that the carers should be given more holiday leave - but not ridiculously more, as all these places need to be run as businesses as well - but also, they need to have their job titles rotated - where possible within the same company - so that they don't spend more than say, 6 months out of every 2 years, as a carer in such a strenuous placement.

Having said all that @Dragonflyspeeding I'm afraid that you should let the company employing those carers, know about what you are witnessing, if it really is excessive - the carers may well have more breaks than is usual in more common businesses - but if excessive, it does need changing for the sake and safety of both the client, and the carers.