Or Is There Some CF going on here.

NotQuiteNorma · 2024-02-14T15:31:58+00:00

Ok, first things first. I'm disabled and familiar with the support packages offered by local authority, but I can't help feel this man is trying it on a tad here? He is given funding for specific activities in this case cinema visits, where he can take his personal assistants. Instead he squirreled the money away to fund accomodation for his 'Pa's' (not carers) for a trip of a lifetime to Florida. The authorities found out he had not been using the funding for what it was specifically provided and want the money back. His contract specifically says that he can not use this money other than for the specific activities it was awarded and the terms and conditions state that the money must be returned if he doesn't use it on those very specific activities. Cue the DM style outrage and intervention from human rights lawyers.... I can't help feeling he is trying it on a bit here and knowingly trying to circumvent the rules. Funding Is so space that it seems unfair to wilfully misappropriate funds like this knowing full well they should be returned if they were not used on the specific activities the funding was granted for. Is he not being a little disingenuous spinning this as a sob story? [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-68178940 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-68178940]]

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 15:44

I think the council's decision is batshit, personally. If he's entitled to wellbeing payments he should be able to decide whether his wellbeing would be better served by a weekly cinema trip or a once in a lifetime holiday. He's a grown adult.

The article says the payments can be used to fund short breaks if it is written in the person's plan, and it wasn't written in his plan. So okay maybe he should have asked them to put it in his plan before starting to save, but they could have just retroactively changed the plan and allowed him to go.

Original poster

NotQuiteNorma · 14/02/2024 15:48

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 15:44

I think the council's decision is batshit, personally. If he's entitled to wellbeing payments he should be able to decide whether his wellbeing would be better served by a weekly cinema trip or a once in a lifetime holiday. He's a grown adult.

The article says the payments can be used to fund short breaks if it is written in the person's plan, and it wasn't written in his plan. So okay maybe he should have asked them to put it in his plan before starting to save, but they could have just retroactively changed the plan and allowed him to go.

But he isn't able to decide, that's the problem. It's specific to particular activities. There's no wriggle room in that, and he knew that.

OP posts:

VickyEadieofThigh · 14/02/2024 15:49

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 15:44

I think the council's decision is batshit, personally. If he's entitled to wellbeing payments he should be able to decide whether his wellbeing would be better served by a weekly cinema trip or a once in a lifetime holiday. He's a grown adult.

The article says the payments can be used to fund short breaks if it is written in the person's plan, and it wasn't written in his plan. So okay maybe he should have asked them to put it in his plan before starting to save, but they could have just retroactively changed the plan and allowed him to go.

The plans are written with specificity because a lot of money is involved and the person's needs have been assessed. The individual knew perfectly well that he couldn't squirrel away the money specified for a weekly activity for another purpose - he'd have to have his needs re-assessed.

It's done this way to stop people taking the piss.

AgnesX · 14/02/2024 15:54

As a person with disabilities and an appreciation of how bloody difficult life is I'm on the fence. I can see why he's saved the money - a shame he has to pay a PA but it is what it is if he wants to go on holiday. Would it make any difference what the destination is.

He's done what most people do ...he's making a choice and budgeting for what's important to him. Freedom to make your own choice is so important.

And the tight arses at the council are making sure he can't do that, even if it the rules

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 15:56

NotQuiteNorma · 14/02/2024 15:48

But he isn't able to decide, that's the problem. It's specific to particular activities. There's no wriggle room in that, and he knew that.

Edited

Show quote history

I understand, I'm saying that I think he should be able to decide.

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 15:59

VickyEadieofThigh · 14/02/2024 15:49

The plans are written with specificity because a lot of money is involved and the person's needs have been assessed. The individual knew perfectly well that he couldn't squirrel away the money specified for a weekly activity for another purpose - he'd have to have his needs re-assessed.

It's done this way to stop people taking the piss.

Show quote history

I understand, but I don't see why a social worker or whoever makes that decision has a better grasp on what would improve this man's wellbeing than the man himself. It's like giving him a food allowance but telling him he's got to eat certain meals or he gives the money back. Can't save up and get a Charlie Bigham fish pie one week because you've been assessed to only need spag bol. It's infantilising, in my opinion.

Barrenfieldoffucks · 14/02/2024 16:01

I agree ref freedom of choice. But equally he knew on receipt of that money that it was against the rules and chose to.do.it anyway...so perhaps not the right way about it.

I don't see trips to Disney world as a fundamental human right, it isn't something he is denied because he is disabled, though I take the point about carers. It is something that should have been done within the rules however.

He's not having to ask him mum for help to live, the cost of his carers for the last few months have come from the 'savings' he accrued. If he is asking for.help it is to go on holiday.

As an aside, £50k is a shit load to have saved from his payments.

VickyEadieofThigh · 14/02/2024 16:03

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 15:59

I understand, but I don't see why a social worker or whoever makes that decision has a better grasp on what would improve this man's wellbeing than the man himself. It's like giving him a food allowance but telling him he's got to eat certain meals or he gives the money back. Can't save up and get a Charlie Bigham fish pie one week because you've been assessed to only need spag bol. It's infantilising, in my opinion.

Show quote history

He will have been involved in drawing up the plan and will have asked for the cinema visit costs. What he should have done is requested a review of his plan so that it could be altered in order for him to be able to re-route the cinema money for a holiday.

Ceàrdaman · 14/02/2024 16:04

If he funds the cinema trips for carers with the allocated money, then he should pay for them to go with him.

I cant get annoyed with that. However I don't think there should be extra funds to pay for carers to go with him - he's saved 50k and his trip is 3.5k - so he has the funds to pay

KTheGrey · 14/02/2024 16:07

Actually I don't think he should get to decide. The rules make a different allowance for holidays, which is made quite clear in the article. He made a fruadulent claim for the wrong thing, so it isn't his money at all, and he shouldn't be allowed to use it to go to Florida. If I claimed from the state for unemployment while working it would be dishonest. So is this.

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 16:09

VickyEadieofThigh · 14/02/2024 16:03

He will have been involved in drawing up the plan and will have asked for the cinema visit costs. What he should have done is requested a review of his plan so that it could be altered in order for him to be able to re-route the cinema money for a holiday.

Show quote history

Of course he should, and only he can explain why he didn't just do that. But still, I think a pragmatic approach by the council would have been more reasonable. I work for a public body and people break the rules all the time - whether it's because they genuinely didn't know, or forgot, or thought they would chance their arm - but "them's the rules" is sometimes just not appropriate. Just my view 🤷🏻‍♀️

User19798 · 14/02/2024 16:14

It is very easy to see how a 'carer' or 'PA" with bad intent might sway the view of a person like this man to not have the weekly trips but save for a 'once in a lifetime holiday'. Especially if the films the gentleman preferred were different to what the PA or carer wanted to watch. A lot of looked after people are coerced and abused financially so checks are essential and allocated funding prevents misuse. It is not as simple as him having the right to chose - he has been deemed unable to make this choice and that is what needs to be changed and fought if it is inappropriate.

Brotherlove · 14/02/2024 16:18

I know my dc previous PA tried really hard to pursuede them to do things - eg let's skip swimming and go carting instead, let's skip cinema and save for sky diving (I wish I were joking!)
The direct payment was specifically given for cinema and/or swimming so it was easy for me to say no because.....
The rules are there to help vulnerable clients

Barrenfieldoffucks · 14/02/2024 16:26

Indeed. If he only wanted to save for a trip he must have reached that threshold years ago if he now has 50k and only needed say 4k. So why didn't he go? Why still save? Why hasn't he been going on the supposedly necessary trips for the last however many years?

clpsmum · 14/02/2024 16:33

I'm more worried about millionaires and billionaires ripping off the system tbh. A disabled persons life is hard enough good luck to him hope he gets his trip of a lifetime

CwmYoy · 14/02/2024 16:43

That's a staggering amount of money to save from benefits.

Octonaut4Life · 14/02/2024 16:46

Direct payments are supposed to fund care needs. If he's saved 50k of direct payment money it would suggest he's been over funded for his actual needs and it would be far better for the money to go to someone else who really does need it.

WiddlinDiddlin · 14/02/2024 16:52

He needs to play the game - he will have had it made clear to him what this money was for and that it was only for the specific purpose, and the holiday was outside that specification.

I think its wrong that we're not allowed the freedom others have to decide what form our needs take, if I want to save for a holiday vs go to the cinema once a week, then I should be able to do that just like any non-disabled person can...

But that is the situation. He could have discussed his need for a holiday and sorted a plan to fund those extra costs, and he didn't do that.

SnackQueen · 14/02/2024 17:01

Total CF. Expressing dismay at having to ask his own family to help pay towards his holiday but it's totally fine to expect the council and in turn taxpayers to fund it? This country is so f*cked.

sexyandsmart · 14/02/2024 17:10

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 15:44

I think the council's decision is batshit, personally. If he's entitled to wellbeing payments he should be able to decide whether his wellbeing would be better served by a weekly cinema trip or a once in a lifetime holiday. He's a grown adult.

The article says the payments can be used to fund short breaks if it is written in the person's plan, and it wasn't written in his plan. So okay maybe he should have asked them to put it in his plan before starting to save, but they could have just retroactively changed the plan and allowed him to go.

Read it again. The issue is that he wants extra funding for 2 carers to travel with him. He is happy to pay for himself but he wants MORE funding to pay for his regular carers to travel also.

takealettermsjones · 14/02/2024 17:16

sexyandsmart · 14/02/2024 17:10

Read it again. The issue is that he wants extra funding for 2 carers to travel with him. He is happy to pay for himself but he wants MORE funding to pay for his regular carers to travel also.

Show quote history

I don't need to read it again, I got that first time, but thanks.

flatmop · 14/02/2024 17:17

CwmYoy · 14/02/2024 16:43

That's a staggering amount of money to save from benefits.

I have to agree. While I don't think care payments should only cover the bare minimum, being in a position to save £50k since lockdown suggests he received a huge amount. How many people here could save that much? I couldn't, even in a 2 income household.

trisky · 14/02/2024 17:22

Nope he's massively taking the piss.

Direct payments should be for the specified purpose only. Where I work we've had similar cases and taken all the money back as we rightly should. Council is on the verge of bankruptcy we can afford to be funding people's holidays.

trisky · 14/02/2024 17:25

*can't

Also, it's not his money, it's the council's!

sexyandsmart · 14/02/2024 17:35

@takealettermsjones

I don't need to read it again, I got that first time, but thanks.

if you got it the first time you would realise the bloke is a CF for expecting the council to give him MORE money to pay for his carers.