Council to consult on plans to change means test for ‘at home’ adult social care

The Conservative-run Isle of Wight council plan to launch a consultation on changes to the means test for at home charges for adult social care.

Respite care :

This in from the council. Follow the discussion at last night’s Scrutiny Committee when the subject was raised by members. Ed

Proposals to change non-residential care charges for adult social care are to be considered by the council’s Cabinet on 15 June, where the option of consulting with users will be discussed.

As is the case nationally, people receiving adult social care on the Island undergo a financial means test to determine whether or not they have to pay for, or contribute towards, the costs of their social care.

Two month consultation
Adult social care is proposing to undertake a two month consultation to evaluate whether or not people in receipt of disability related benefits at the higher or enhanced rates, should have the totality of these benefits included as part of their income calculation in this means test.

The proposals seek to ensure that all income is taken into account for those people who receive Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payments. This is a change in the current arrangements where the income from these benefits is assumed to be at the lower rates only – regardless of whether or not the person receives the higher rates.

‘Fairer Charging rules’
Currently, people who receive these benefits at the higher or enhanced rate have the difference between the lower and higher rates effectively ignored for purposes of means testing for adult social care. By way of contrast, those people who receive the lower, middle or standard rates of these benefits have all of this income taken into consideration in the means test.

By not taking the higher or enhanced rate of these benefits into account, adult social care has been following previous guidance under ‘Fairer Charging rules’, issued by the Department of Health. The introduction of the Care Act 2014 has replaced all previous guidance and legislation and now allows the council, if it chooses, to include these benefits at the higher or enhanced rate as part of a charging assessment.

If approved, the consultation will seek the views of relevant service users and stakeholders, together with potential users and other interested parties.

Seeking a broad and thorough consultation
Councillor Clare Mosdell, cabinet member for adult social care, said:

“We are seeking a broad and thorough consultation on these proposals, which have been generated to ensure equity in how all benefit income is treated when we levy charges on people. It will also assist Adult Social Care in meeting its ongoing savings targets, which are £3.845 million in 2017/18, set against the backdrop of new legislation and financial pressures.

“The consultation will look to see if we can bring in a system that is fairer for all. We will take full account of the feedback and consultation findings before bringing finalised proposals to the Cabinet for consideration.”

Image: khrawlings under CC BY 2.0

Location map
View the location of this story.

Wednesday, 14th June, 2017 2:04pm



Filed under: Budget Cuts, Island-wide, Isle of Wight Council, Isle of Wight News, Top story

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Any views or opinions presented in the comments below are solely those of the author and do not represent those of OnTheWight.


  1. Suruk the Slightly Miffed

    14.Jun.2017 3:20pm

    Good old Tories. Stabbing the most vulnerable in society in the back, as usual.

    • ansallmoneyfordyouknow

      16.Jun.2017 3:01pm

      I agree with you Suruk,
      but remember that every time someone votes
      for Tory, Labour, Green, UKIP, Even Liberal Democrat, their votes strengthens the figurative monster that in your words
      stab the most vulnerable in society.
      That’s the reality Suruk.
      So every voter needs to pause for thought and decide if they are content to gain more pain every time they vote.
      I will actually suggest right here right now that the democracy we have breathed life in to for so long
      is on its last legs…even if actual demise takes a while to happen…but it will.
      The terrible tragedy which took place in Kensington on Wednesday morning,
      has effectively sealed the fate of the backstabbing selfish negligent monster aka as parliament.

      • Not all politicians are the same. Some of them are actually good. And even if they were all bad, it would still be our responsibility as citizens to vote for the least bad among them. If we can’t even be bothered to vote then we we have no right to complain.

        • ansallmoneyfordyouknow

          24.Jun.2017 5:42am

          I agree that not all politicians are the same.
          The trouble is the good ones are difficult to find and don’t seem to assert themselves enough
          and so the bad politicians continue to get all the attention and have more influence over how our country is run.

      • And what’s your proposed alternative to Parliament?

        The Grenfell Tower disaster happened no doubt because of many factors, but some of the most crucial factors that contributed were probably:
        more people voting Tory in the Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, so that the Tory councillors ignored the concerns of Labour voters in the poor parts of the borough;
        the privatisation of most work once done local councils, so that there was inadequate oversight of the tower’s management and maintenance;
        and national government inaction on building regulations, because they spend their time attacking what they call ‘red tape’, rather than strengthening the regulations that protect people, and the people who enforce rthe regulations that protect people, especially it seems the fire resistance of cladding materials.

        If people had voted differently in the past, the fire might not have happened. The way people vote can be the difference between life and death, whether that’s for disabled people whose benefits have been cut, elderly people told they’ll have to pay for the meagre amount of care they get, or poor people killed by a horribly avoidable fire.

        • I do wish people would wait for the findings in relation to the fire.
          I have my opinions, but that’s just what they are, opinions.
          Spreading views like the above is not helpful. What is needed now, first and foremost, is the support of those who have been traumatised, and support of our emergency services who are doing an unenviable job in horrible conditions.
          Shouting and protesting about blame does neither of these, it is seeking to make political capital out of a tragedy.

          • ansallmoneyfordyouknow

            24.Jun.2017 5:47am

            you made some valid points.
            However, have you forgotten just how badly the government responded to the Grenfell Tower fire?
            The Prime minister’s reaction was insulting to the survivors and I don’t believe she will be be forgiven for that.

  2. So – why do people get “higher” or “enhanced” disability payments? Because they NEED this money to lead a dignified life. To include these payments in means-testing for non-residential care contributions would not be “fairer for all” – it will just penalise the disabled (again!). Nobody wants to be in this position, and it could happen to anyone in life. Can we not accept the principle that we all collectively look after our young, our old, our vulnerable and disabled through our taxation system so that no-one is reduced to abject poverty through circumstances out of thier control? This is the mark of a civilised nation!

    • Very well said dumbledor but the truth is that care and sympathy are foreign concepts to both the Tories and many ‘ordinary’ folk. As a disabled person I witness light aggression almost daily because I don’t (apparently) look disabled, something I had not experienced 10 years ago! Both my wife and myself have already discussed our possible predicaments a bit later in life (I am 62) and I shall simply remove myself from the need for care! The struggle to keep disability benefits is so stressful now, with a humiliating and degrading ‘medical’ every couple of years, along with this ridiculous perception that people may not look disabled and therefor deserve no financial or physical help is grist to the mill for the biggoted and calous in society, including this government. Any more removal of income will just be too much to live with I’m afraid. We already pay some council tax, a bedroom tax and our money has not gone up in line with inflation so just how much more ‘Crip bashing’ are we expected to take? The answer now lies within our own hands. Suicide rates amongst disabled folk have risen hugely over the past few years, and this new attack will drive them much higher in my opinion.

  3. ansallmoneyfordyouknow

    15.Jun.2017 3:50pm

    I believe that this means testing thing is getting out of hand and is causing the most vulnerable and needy to feel stressed and anxious without just cause.

    • Suruk the Slightly Miffed

      15.Jun.2017 10:26pm

      I believe the reason that higher and enhanced rates of these benefits are not taken into account when means testing is to avoid the effect of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

      Your condition worsens. You now qualify for the higher benefit payments, but you now have to pay more for your care. In one hand, out the other.

      • ansallmoneyfordyouknow

        16.Jun.2017 11:03am

        But who chooses to have ill health let alone old?
        It seems to me that the sick and elderly are being punished by the government(s) for reasons that are out of their control.
        what is our country coming to?
        What hurts me, even more, is that when the politicians that make these policies don’t have to worry if and when they get ill when they are old
        because they are given gold-plated pensions
        even though they wreak havoc throughout the country in the name of democracy.

  4. What the Council need to do instead is to lobby the national government for enough funding so that local councils can do their job properly. Vulnerable elderly and disabled people are already getting the bare minimum of ‘social’ care from local councils because of national government cuts. It’s obscenely unfair when some people with medical conditions need help, but because the help they need is labelled ‘personal’ or ‘social’ they have to pay for it, whereas if the help they needed was labelled ‘medical’ they would get it for free from the National Health Service.

    It’s about time that medical care and so-called ‘social care’ were all covered by the National Health Service, so that nobody was left to struggle, let alone worry about money – something which is likely to make them even more ill.

    • ansallmoneyfordyouknow

      24.Jun.2017 5:53am

      Well said, Rowan.
      I completely agree with your idea of bringing medical and social care under one roof.
      But the question is would you be willing to pay more tax to make your idea possible?

Add comment