What is going on in this house?

[Neighbourmystery]

Right, this is going to sound nosy but here goes...
A house in a street I know was owned by an old lady with no family. When she died, her house stood empty for nearly a year then it started having work done. It's been bought by a health service far away from he town we live in (think I live in Liverpool and NHS Devon and Cornwall bought it) BTW these are not the real locations. So, they do lots of renovations, including putting a much higher fence up which has a key code entry they also put frosted film on every window. There's a new build extension on the side with coded keypads too. This is where 2 carers are. There are 4 carers altogether, 2 at a time and then a swap. There is one man who lives there . He is in his 30s , able bodied can move well etc I've seen him once or twice in the garden in a whole year. Another twice I saw a darkened van come to get him. He was only gone for an hour or so then back.
I cannot imagine the scenario this might be. I'm not curtain twitching and permanently watching but I am fascinated.

Definitely just him
Always 2 carers there. I know they are carers because of their uniform etc

Yup exactly what I have said.

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.

Well the medicines are generally used to cure things or stop them getting worse, keeping people out of pain. And as for the prosthesis needs of growing children, they could have a new prosthesis weekly and it still wouldn't come close to the costs of funding something like an autistic man needing a secure house to himself and round the clock care at a 5 to 1 ratio, would it? Just the NHS spends vast amounts on some people for one set of reasons doesn't mean that vast sums are automatically justifiable for completely different reasons. Especially in situations where there is no realistic chance of improvement of the person's condition.

As for 'we try not to put people in hospitals for life any more' well I'd argue perhaps we should. Doing it this way clearly isn't affordable or even all that beneficial. That autistic man who is an extreme danger to himself and others clearly has a very limited ability to enjoy his life in any 'normal' way regardless of what environment he's kept in. And the severely mentally unwell woman mentioned by another poster who lived in a similar semi-independent facility ended up taking her own life anyway, so clearly being out of a hospital wasn't the answer for her either.

I am not at all convinced that is way of doing things is always the right policy or a sensible use of NHS money when we could be detecting and treating cancers earlier and and performing more elective surgeries that would vastly improve so many people's quality of life and get them back into work and helping the economy grow, instead of leaving otherwise healthy people languishing on waiting lists for years because of budget restraints. We have to make tough decisions and spend the money where it will do the most good and make the biggest difference to the most people.

I thought he died?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Ahh ok x I’d be curious too @Neighbourmystery but I freely admit I’m the nosiest person I know 😂
Of course you can’t ask the carers and despite what so many on here think, I actually read your op and subsequent posts and know you never had any intention of doing so!
I think you’ve unfairly been given a hard time for chatting and wondering about it here, but that’s MN for you!!
💐

Well that is a contradiction in terms, isn't it? Most cost effective but least restrictive.... The minute you started considering what is 'least' restrictive then all cost considerations will go out of the window, won't they? Your choice is then between whichever option is merely eye wateringly expensive, rather than horrifically and stratospherically eye wateringly expensive.

I'd suggest in many of these cases, what is 'least restrictive' for the 'client' makes fuck all real difference to them anyway and only serves to make the rest of us feel better about how kind and enlightened we have become in our treatment of people with complex MH issues, autism or intellectual disabilities etc. There has to be some sensible middle ground here, surely? We don't have to resort to tying mentally disabled people to beds like it's communist era Romania, but come on now. There have to be limits.

The law doesnt allow for solitary confinement unless under the justice system

Hospitals are for treating people with treatable conditions.

Neither of your suggestions would accommodate the types of people many of us have been talking about on here.

I was an independent visitor for a teen who upon leaving care, was homeless before having a house with two carers with her at all times. It broke my heart as she was a bright, capable girl who'd been given endless opportunities but the early childhood damage was too much.

She'd been on drugs and was volatile, sometimes partook in risk-taking behaviours and could be violent. She would often take overdoses not enough to kill her but enough to be taken to hospital.

I wasn't privy to the full story as she was (by now) an adult with capacity, and there was no getting the truth out of her, but putting two and two together she was entitled to live independently somewhat but not alone. It is not unlikely that it is something like that.

One assumes this is a joke!!

Then the law should be changed.

Hospitals, secure facilities, large scale residential care homes, it's all semantics. I don't care what you want to call them and what the technicalities and differences between each are. People whose conditions are not treatable and for whom there is no real chance of cure or improvement and whose quality of life and often their understanding of, and ability to enjoy their surroundings and interactions are vastly limited anyway, should not be having this sort of money spent on them just to keep them 'safe.' If keeping them safe is the main objective there are far cheaper ways than this to do it. It's an extremely poor and misguided use of NHS resources.

This

Look on the council website. There should be pp for extension and change of use. I'd want to know what was going on in my neighborhood. Perfectly reasonable to ask.

Fucking hell there's some annoying sanctimonious people on this thread. It's completely normal, understandable and indeed desirable behaviour to be alert to one's surroundings. I suppose these people who say you should carry on as if there is 'nothing to see here' go round in some kind of rainbow bubble where the world is fully of lovely happy people living side by side in harmony, all the while projecting their own shit onto anyone who dares to be alert to what goes on in their own neighbourhood and community.

You need to be sectionable to be detained in a psychiatric hospital, you need to have a treatable MH condition. Hospitals are not just holding placements.

ASD/PD are not treatable MH conditions, even if someone has PD and can have some therapeutic input for it, its not a detainable condition. ASD is not a MH condition at all.

It is interesting that this kind of care is a realistic prospect for some. I understand "we" don't want people in institutions long term and of course if it was me or a loved one that's what I'd fight for, but difficult decisions have to be made across all areas of NHS care, based on cost. This does seem excessive.

I dont disagree. Im just telling you what the law is now.

And its not just about the law, society championed for this sort of individualism, inclusion, 'support' and while that is empowering to some people with much much lower need, it results in situations like this or results in situations where people are left without support and monitoring which is to their detriment and society's detriment as well.

People are horrified by institutionalisation of people, you wouldnt want that for your relative, you would want them to live the most free life they could, the least restrictions as the law sets out.

Wow so if one of your children, close relatives were in an accident/attacked and ended up with an acquired brain injury you would be happy for them to just be locked away due to cost?

i have commissioned high cost packages for people who cant breathe unaided with no chance of improvement but can go home with their loved ones and have care at home, do you also suggest they should be locked away somewhere also