It mentions a way around social work who simply refuse to follow direction of the vulnerable person who wants to employ their family members in the same household as their caregiver/worker.
Already posted in full … page 1 of the main DP thread :
Part of the whole analysis of the DP issue.
Out of curiosity , what conclusion would you draw on the evidence presented ?
Paying a relative through a direct payment
If one looks at the Care Act direct payment regulations, one finds that there is no rule against a parent not living in the same household, being paid to do the care. There is a presumption against any spouse or cohabitee or other specified close relative living in the same household, including a parent, doing the care, but even then, a discretion may be exercised to permit it, if it is necessary.
( But , if the caree employs a family carer to care , Employment law kicks in ! Provided that is observed to the letter , what’s the problem ? Family member is NO LONGER A " CARER " , now a paid worker. )
Just one bit of the whole jigsaw puzzle that does NOT fit together ?
DWP view ? HM Revenue & Customs view ? LAs view ? NHS view ?
Yep , with CUK to sort out !
( DPs have been around for a decade … I asked a simple question ( As I did with AA / DLA / PIP / SDA ) … the rest is
now for all to see.
Begs the question … what else out there needs a little bit of testing / digging ???
21 Hour Rule is built on sand ! )
A little twist ?
Caree employs a family member to care.
Said family member forms a limited company … separate legal entity !
Under DPs … allowed … or perfectly within the law ???
( Both the TaxMan and DoleMan happy … tax being paid , no benefits being claimed. )
Expenses … as an employee , many can be claimed … as a family carer , none !!!
Going rate charged … fine ? … if premium rate ( Say £ 25 instead of £ 15 per hour ) … and to decrease the caree’s assets when it comes to care home considerations… deprivation of assets … a whole new dimension ???
Whose first for THE court case to determine once and for all what is allowed … and what isn’t ?
( Perhaps I should start charging for some of these ? )
Great info. Chris.
What’s the 21 hour rule not heard of that before?
Can you form a limited company to care for an individual/individuals?
21 Hour Rule in all it’s glory :
( Best bit ? 2 disabled persons both caring for each other. Both study at the same course , each needs the other to attend. NO
impact on the disability benefit side ( If no grant payable ) BUT … each would lose their Carers Allowance if their studies take
them over 21 hours per week. )
Again , merely through testing an age old assumption ?
( Public transport … a guide dog travels free with a blind person … a human carer does NOT ! )
Carer / caree / limited company ?
Feasible under present Law … provided the TaxMan is happy , only leaves those with possible , future , interests to mount a
challenge in the future … hence the deprivation of assets hurdle with a potential move into a care home.
I have assumed NO benefits paid to the the carer… now employee … Carers Allowance ceasing on becoming an employee.
There are all sorts of possibities here , most are technically " Illegal " but … still open to be explored.
( I did set out the whole scenario within the main GREEN PAPER CARERS STRATEGY thread … in line with present Government
policy in reducing the burden of caring on the State … not one comment ! )
In short , AND PURELY FROM THE INTERESTS OF A FAMILY CARER , no more Carers Pittance … one’s pay depends on their caree !
Trouble is … no caree / no carer … a partnership … what would be good for the carer would also be bad for the caree.
As now an employer / employee relationship , perhaps the local Union rep would step in to mediate between the two sides ???
For the cherry on the top , let me introduce you to our Lord Kitch … everything that needs to be challenged under one thread :
Most on there have been in place for DECADES !!!