anniegyg

Member
  • Content count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About anniegyg

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday
  1. Socrates: Hugh James. Lost case (in spite of what is plain to our eyes). Forgotten past identities. You and me both! One thing I learnt and would wish to emphasise: don't neglect the - bother, forgotten the terms - the conditions beyond the 'scores' ('complexity' was one) are more important to the NHS because they are so nebulus and subjective. Arggghhh.
  2. QUOTE: OBSERVATION One of the things that bugged me in the old Forum was that we were constantly being told that there were many email and telephone contacts with the Admin and that he was regularly winning cases for people – all ‘behind closed doors’. REPLY . I think we all know the answer. Response: Sorry admin - are you not doing the same when you tell us, without substantiation, that you receive 30 calls a day? Why are none of these people posting on the Forum? (And please don't ban me!)
  3. The contribution by Banana prompts me to return here. I was one of those (in a former existence) who was twice banned for politely standing up to the then Admin. Some of us knew, and were not afraid to state, that he was very wrong and was misleading people. But my questions now are, in a sense, more serious, or at least more pressing. Even with the help of the leading solicitor in the field of chc I lost my case. During this process, which lasted several years, I became aware that the numbers of people claiming chc diminished significantly, not least due to the NHS constantly moving goal posts. Following the re-vamp of this Forum I do not see lots of people seeking help. Is there a need for such a forum? Does anyone ever obtain chc these days? Is anyone even trying? All of the cases I have found on the internet are several years old. One of the things that bugged me in the old Forum was that we were constantly being told that there were many email and telephone contacts with the Admin and that he was regularly winning cases for people – all ‘behind closed doors’. Now, of course, I realise that some matters are too private to be aired on a public forum. But I hope that this new Forum does not degenerate into hinting at work done behind the scenes. All the best for the new Forum.
  4. Steve: QUOTE: Tell them to refer to the 'Booker' case where the Court ruled that ALL the care Alison Booker required was the sole responsibility of the NHS notwithstanding that she had £2.9 Million in her bank account. Steve. There is NO lawful demarcation between 'nursing care' and so-called 'social care'. According to the ruling in 'Coughlan' "it's all nursing". If a patient requires 24/7 access to care services then sole responsibility rests with the NHS. Steve. END QUOTE Is this still the official position of this Forum? Specifically, does David and his legal team agree with it? It would be good to have this clarified for any future enquirers.
  5. I am sure you agree that information on this forum must be accurate and clear. Self-funding actually begins at a far lower figure than that. This is the fact: ... Local authority or trust helps pay for care costs if you have assets and savings of less than £23,250. You pay for your care costs if you have assets and savings of ... more than £23,250 ... Note the words 'helps pay'. Social Services will determine (whether we like it not) the level of our assets and will start charging for care on a fixed scale determined by their assessment of our assets. I can't remember the scale but it will be on-line somewhere. I know - I've been there.
  6. B1ron: I haven't noticed you back on the site for some time. I note that you had a meeting last week. Are you able to share with us how you got on at the said meeting? It might help others. Thank you.
  7. Factually correct, I think but not the whole story. Checklist and DST still required. One doesn't follow from the other, in my opinion. It should follow, but in practice, it doesn't (in my experience and in the experience of many others). You can only qualify for full NHS funding if you have a ' 'Primary Health Need' as determined by the tools, not by any other method of assessment. B1ron: a word of caution. Do NOT antagonise your local Social Services department. A crucial finding in the important and key Coughlan case is that your friend's needs must be greater than Social Services are allowed by law to meet. Only Social Services can determine that so you need them on your side. Be nice to them. In my experience many Social Workers can be extremely patronising - stick to you guns but don't fall into the trap of being rude to them This is a word from my experience.
  8. Hello B1ron I expect you know you have a long road ahead of you. But the good news is that there is plenty of help - in a number of places, here and elsewhere. Your neighbour should be assessed by the CHECKLIST and the DECISION SUPPORT TOOL before she leaves hospital. Only these tools will determine whether she is eligible for NHS funding - of course the 'domains' and 'criteria' have to applied correctly and therein lies the rub and the struggle - but we have to go down that road to stand any chance of winning our cases. You have the right to demand to be present when these tools are administered because you have POA. A good start would be to read everything you can find on the tools and the National Guidelines. I wish you all the best.
  9. Indeed, it's all a scam. And the suffering people suffer more. Shame on them.
  10. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/only-29-people-come-forward-7420854 Just seen this on a health forum. A disgrace. But good to know someone is doing something about re-claiming care fees.
  11. Thank you Steve: that is all very well but we are at the coal-face. My friend has had an assessment and was thought not to qualify for funding. I am very stressed about it all. She needs to be in care and social services are the ones, I think, to suggest suitable homes. In fact they have just sent a list and one of the homes is very well known to me – and I know it would be a suitable place for my friend. It is nearing the time to move and I see no other option but to comply. And we cannot get advice on this because it takes time for a solicitor to decide whether to take the case on a no fee-no win basis, I understand. It feels as if we are caught between a rock and a hard place, as they say.
  12. Hello everyone I seem to have lost the place where I gave information about my friend. So, this seems the most appropriate place. I'm sorry if I've got it wrong. Just to up-date people. I have received a list of nursing homes in my area and Social Services are inviting us to have a look at them and liaise with them. So there is some work ahead of us which will need to be done quickly.
  13. Well, thank goodness I'm not deluded. Mind you, your suggestion of hanging politicians up is an excellent one. (PS Your are not the only one who can twist what people say!!)
  14. Esquires: this, of course, is and 'not the way to go', any more. http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbNcCM4mTXy1CB3-GYvOBTOooIkbFTST_nAD84mNlxxTDEpLuo
  15. Esquires: it seems to me not 'Nit picking' to correct a mistake. There is a big difference between the Lords and the Commons, as you surely must know if you read everything they say (in addition to the 17 hours a day you spend on helping people and the thesis you are writing). I have read the quote and would be interested to know how you feel it to be flawed: it seems to me to be an accurate statement of 'where we are at'. We may not (and obviously do not) like it or agree with their unjust rules, but that's how it is and it is the basis on which we have to fight. Or am I nit-picking as well? No, in all this CHC mess, we need to be entirely accurate and circumspect if we are to get anywhere with these idiots in the NHS and SS bureaucracy.