What's a reasonable salary for being a 24hr carer?

[KindlySurfiingPlatypus]

Interested in this article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr93zp78g580o - for clarity I 100% support Bern Rogers in this and think the decision is correct but it sets a really important precedent. I'm posting this in Feminism because I think the value that society places on caring work is a really important feminist issue.

Summary - to avoid the enormous costs of a nursing home, Bern Rogers agreed to provide round-the-clock care for her mum at home. Right from the start it was agreed that she should be paid for this, but a specific amount wasn't agreed. Her mum lived for a further 2.5 years during which Bern was more-than-full-time working as a carer, not able to combine that caring work with any other kind of employment and on duty at all hours. Bern took it upon herself to decide that the appropriate remuneration for 2.5 years of labour was £100,000 and transferred this amount to herself after her mother died - this perhaps wasn't the best way to do it, but after subsequent accusations of fraud and theft (where she was found not guilty) the courts determined that the actual amount she should be paid was more like £127,000. Meanwhile the other potential beneficiaries of the mum's estate are fighting tooth and nail and believe that Bern should have been paid more like £50 per week basically pocket money (would be £6,500 for 2.5 years of 24/7 work).

I think the judgement is correct - if Bern hadn't taken on this role she could have been in paid employment and earned something in the region of £100,000 in employment salary during those 2.5 years but the estate would have had to pay something in excess of £390,000 - potentially the full value of the estate less the £23,500 savings allowance if the mum had been in a nursing home for that time. Her sacrifice saved the estate an enormous amount of money.

However up and down the country there are (almost always) women doing this kind of work with no hope of a significant inheritance and nothing but the measley £86.45 carers allowance to recompense them for a punishing workload.

I'm glad that this case has set a precedent that this kind of work has a real value. Should it be codified with an agreed rate card that allows family members who provide care like this to invoice an estate for services provided (there often won't be cash available to pay them during the elderly person's lifetime if the estate is tied up in property) or should it depend on the wealth of the person in question and therefore be variable from family to family?

It sounds less than average.

The average rate for a live in carer working a 14 hour day with a 2 hour break mid afternoon and no calls in the night with someone who doesn't have to be hoisted is £160 a day.

£50 a week? Come on!

Just worked out that would be about £140k so I can see why the courts granted her more.

This whole thing could all have been avoided if they had agreed on a rate to start with - that was the mistake they made.

It seems like she hadn't taken any money at all for food, heating, water, electricity etc before taking the £100k so that would have been part of it too. I think it's a positive outcome but people need to be careful that an agreement is recorded, the judgement relies on evidence that the Mum wanted the DD "paid properly".

I think this is why any agreements of this type need to be written down.

Ignore my post above. Posted on wrong thread and have asked for it to be deleted.

I agree. All of this could have been avoided with clear communication and a written agreement. I do find it strange that Bern wasn’t paid for her caring role while her mother was still living but haven’t read the judgement so maybe there was a reason for that - although I can’t think what that might have been. On the face of it the failure to take smaller amounts of money earlier look like an attempt to hide the financial aims from the rest of the family.