Admin

Admin rants

10 posts in this topic

Dear Anne,

 
I am sorry you are having problems logging on. I have asked my IT person to look at overnight. 
 
Is there a question you want an answer to?
 
I am sorry if this post doesn't cover your question, but it answers all the PM's I have had this evening.
 
 Anything Steve Squires may have written has to be ignored, and any mention of Coughlan "entitlement" will get an applicant on a CHC/DST/IRP/NHS England nowhere. 
 
I think I'm going to scream if the next person who sends me an email saying that "mum has x, so she must be entitled to continuing healthcare".CHC 
 
If only that was true. In reality, we need evidence to secure two severe out of all the domains to win, and even winning has a sting in the tail. (more later on that topic) 
 
As lawyers, Dr's and social workers we took over the forum as many people were having their lives destroyed by Steve's one-man mission to prove that his view was correct and all the Dr's hcp's and lawyers were wrong. 
 
This forum is for the so-called "self-funder"- a morally corrupt concept, but one where experts who understand the Care Act and Mental Capacity Act can provide help that can change people's lives and get some "self-funders" to become the responsibility of the Local Authority.
 
I have spent the day on the wrong end of DST's where CHC's are ignoring the National Framework 
 
We have to fight back.
 
Goodnight 
 
Admin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a long time since I've used this forum, or any other connected with my relative's situation, sadly mum died a couple of years ago after being in a nursing home for seven years. I would only recommend it to others if it was clear that Steve Squires was nothing to do with it. I see that one of the posts I've accessed this evening congratulates him on setting up the forum and says how wonderful he is. That is dated October 30, 2016.

I guess that may be the date that info was transferred to a new server but if it was my forum I'd probably delete anything with his name on it. 

Many of the posters on the original forum were fantastic, so helpful and willing to share info and ideas. I'm not sure I have any relevant experience now but I did manage to get continuing care funding for five years, really by keeping the case inside the appeal system, not sure if that is possible now as I know criteria were tightened up.

Best wishes to everyone, especially old friends who were on the board up to 2013, and if it is possible, I will try to visit and post if I think I can say anything relevant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Socrates, you are correct, when all the posts migrated they were assigned the same date.

I hope you will pop back to the forum now and then and support others. 

Life for anyone seeking funding for social care by way of CHC (Continuing Healthcare)  or FNC Funded Nursing Care, will soon hear about a young man called Luke Davey who has a series of challenging medical issues.

The case was not about CHC, but about the withdrawal of another benefit, Independent Living Fund ("ILF") which resulted in the Local authority stepping in to assess need.

Where CHC is not obtained or withdrawn,  this case is relevant, and the outcome not helpful to anyone than the local authority, or anyone who can afford a solicitor who can distinguish your case from the facts in Luke's. 

This case went to the High Court and is the first serious challenge to The Care Act's duty to consider all the statutory  "wellbeing"  features (s1.(1)) 

The case is very long, and complicated, however, and these are the chilling words "there is no duty to achieve the outcomes which the adult wishes to achieve; rather it is a duty to assess whether the provision of care and support could contribute to those outcomes"

This is not a case of shoddy social work, far from it, rather this is an indication of what a slashed social care budgets mean to Mr Davey

If anyone is faced with the Local Authority social services department reducing or removing Packages of Care, appropriate legal advice needs to be taken.

However, if you want your letter or email to be ignored, please, please don't quote "Coughlan" or "NHS Constitution"  and expect everything you ask for to be agreed.

All some social workers will do is know you is you have Googled up some law, not understood it, and then walk all over your rights. There is a reason Dr's go to medical school for 7 years, social workers take 6 years to qualify, and lawyers take 6/7 years to start a lifetime of learning. 

Use us to fight for your rights and use the forum for supporting each other.

Admin

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may still be in the deep and darkest places when it comes to care, and to dementia care.

Like Socrates, I am also a former member of the previous existence of this forum.  I am feeling slightly astonished that the forum continues under the same name, and with much of the same discredited information that came via the former owner of the group.  

As mentioned by Socrates, there were many former members of the forum who were spat at and blocked because they were just trying to provide accurate and up-to-date info about care and about CHC in particular.

I am also perplexed that this forum continues to exist - but only because it has access to the email addresses of former members, most of whom will have received an invitation to connect again.  Please explain how this came to be?



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello I am the new "admin"

I am sorting out the mess Stephen Squires spouted as he was wrong both on the law and on the process. 

I decided to keep the forum up so I can resolve those who relied on Mr Squires nonsense and ended up by paying huge care home fee bills. 

Stephen Squires still does not understand the obligation of the CCG in assessing eligibility for continuing health care (CHC), and the role of the Local Authority under the Care Act s9 (assessing need) are completely sperate.

MR STEPHEN SQUIRES IS BANNED AND ANYONE WHO PAID HIM MONEY IS FREE TO PM ME.

 To answer the following questions 

OBSERVATION Even with the help of the leading solicitor in the field of chc I lost my case.

REPLY .  As one of the 100/150 solicitors who work in this area, I am surprised you lost. I do accept the CCG's are ignoring the National Framework, but a lawyer should not allow a DST to proceed unless they can satisfy themselves of NICU. If you get a perverse outcome, you get evidence of non-compliance with the procedure or lack of medical evidence and turn up at the Appeal to justify the fee.

OBSERVATION 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.

REPLY, the numbers of people applying are increasing ( I get 30 calls per day) but yes, the NHS , via the CCG is changing the rules, but every hospital is obliged to undertake a CHC Checklist.  We have a list of the CCG's who are flouting the National framework.

OBSERVATION Following the re-vamp of this Forum I do not see lots of people seeking help.

REPLY  Agreed, and I have no idea why!

I am happy to expand on any questions if the reply will be of general interest. 

ADMIN

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear anniegyg,

Hello- We do not ban people. Why should we? The need for advice on CHC is more important than ever when so much incorrect information is on line.

Due to client or patient confidentiality we are not allowed to promote interests we are involved in so we do not mention the forum. 

We receive plenty of PM's and unlike Stephen this forum is not intended to be a platform to either rant rubbish or sell services. 

If you are having problems with either getting a CHC checklist, or have a DST that's plain wrong, we are here to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one stage I seriously considered using Squires as he seemed to have all the answers but he was never able to provide the killer points which made it inevitable that the NHS and SS would cave in and he seemed somewhat overworked with the high numbers of cases he said he was dealing with.

We used Hugh James who were excellent and I think having requests from them for my mother's records certainly stopped the PCT from continuing to hold meetings without giving us adequate notice etc.

However, despite mum being seriously disabled through a series of strokes, bedridden, doubly incontinent, unable to feed herself and with vascular dementia, Hugh James said we would not win if we pursued our case so the only thing we could do was keep delaying the final outcome and keep getting the SHA to refer the case back to the PCT on the grounds that the appeal process there had not been exhausted.

Eventually we did have to pay and unfortunately if Hugh James, with its long history of these cases, doesn't think a case like my mother's qualifies for continuing care funding, then I don't really know how much worse a patient has to be to get anywhere.

Goodness knows how many times Steve banned me, I had so many new identities I couldn't always remember who I was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Socrates said:

At one stage I seriously considered using Squires as he seemed to have all the answers but he was never able to provide the killer points which made it inevitable that the NHS and SS would cave in and he seemed somewhat overworked with the high numbers of cases he said he was dealing with.

We used Hugh James who were excellent and I think having requests from them for my mother's records certainly stopped the PCT from continuing to hold meetings without giving us adequate notice etc.

However, despite mum being seriously disabled through a series of strokes, bedridden, doubly incontinent, unable to feed herself and with vascular dementia, Hugh James said we would not win if we pursued our case so the only thing we could do was keep delaying the final outcome and keep getting the SHA to refer the case back to the PCT on the grounds that the appeal process there had not been exhausted.

Eventually we did have to pay and unfortunately if Hugh James, with its long history of these cases, doesn't think a case like my mother's qualifies for continuing care funding, then I don't really know how much worse a patient has to be to get anywhere.

Goodness knows how many times Steve banned me, I had so many new identities I couldn't always remember who I was!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor