Living alone in wheelchair vs assisted living? - Page 2 — Scope | Disability forum
If we become concerned about you or anyone else while using one of our services, we will act in line with our safeguarding policy and procedures. This may involve sharing this information with relevant authorities to ensure we comply with our policies and legal obligations.

Find out how to let us know if you're concerned about another member's safety.
Please read our updated community house rules and community guidelines.

Living alone in wheelchair vs assisted living?

2»

Comments

  • Rifi7
    Rifi7 Community member Posts: 198 Pioneering
    Oh Pollyanna,
    Me too. I will also soon have to pay the shortfall because I want to chose my own decent care agency. I have a PA but when she’s on holiday the council send a agency to cover her time off.  The council send my details of the job out to agencies and the agencies then bid to take the job. Then council only get bids from low grade agencies because the council pay very little.  So far I have had two agencies sent out to me from the council. The first agency’s carer’s were not turning up and I was left without a carer on many occasions. The second one sent a carer who was intoxicated. When I complained to this particular agency they just sent another lady who didn’t speak English, so I found myself constantly repeating myself. Your right, they don’t give us a care and yes they just want to send anybody. It makes me worry about elderly people who are vulnerable and don’t have family. It’s shocking. We are lucky we have our facilities about us.
  • Rifi7
    Rifi7 Community member Posts: 198 Pioneering
    Pollyanna
    Did you manage to get your respite sorted out? I know you were having trouble with your funding with that?
  • Geoark
    Geoark Community member Posts: 1,463 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi @newborn

    While I agree with you that this is madness and the sentiments behind your comments, I believe the problem is the way we view housing. Housing has become less about providing an essential requirement and more of a product. In a society where products have become throwaways, this is perhaps not the right place to be.

    Coupled with successive governments more interested in subsidising wealth creation than supporting the poor and less able in society, little surprises me, though it does make me angry.

    We talk about council housing but of course due to Labour policy many councils transferred either its housing stock or control of its housing stock to other organisations. Conservative policies have further reduced the housing stock, cut council funding. The introduction of a statutory reduction in social rent by 1% each year also reducing the income they have while at the same time evictions for rent arrears have continued to rise.

    The conservative view I can at least understand, though disagree with, as they see it as a last choice in housing when no alternatives are available. But Labour managed to do the most significant damage to the quantity of council housing stock.

    These changes give councils an issue when it comes to reletting its voids. Empty properties represent a further loss of income, plus adaptations can represent higher repair costs in the future. How then do you go about letting such properties while minimising loss of income?  For example, my home could be adapted at some point to meet our needs, but will never suit wheelchair users. Primarily because of the steps to get out. We have had people refuse lets on the estate because it is just within the congestion zone and would add additional costs. 

    Another aspect often overlooked is these are general needs stock. In short originally not intended to house those with special needs. This classification in itself can create issues, as often little thought or no thought has gone into how the homes can be suitable for those with specific needs. 

    None of these is insurmountable but will add to the pressure on housing staff and stock management. One example I can give to illustrate this, we have some properties that were designated older people dwellings. Increasingly it became difficult to let these properties, and eventually, the council removed this designation. This change meant that suddenly we were getting young single people being allocated homes among older people, ranging from 60 to 100+ in age. The sudden changes in allocations resulted in complaints about anti-social behaviour. A lot of these were more to do with different living styles rather than bad behaviour. One complaint investigated involved a young person playing their music loudly. As we have staff on-site, the manager went straight over. The young person was not playing music, but a neighbour had their doors and windows wide open, and the tenant had their tv on full volume. This behaviour was not an issue with their neighbours. 

    Far more frustrating for me is knowing there are significant projects to build new homes, and we continue to overlook the needs of wheelchair users and others. Some may even win design awards, which usually translate to higher costs years later when those designs may look good but are impracticable. In one case, the need for a mobile platform to change the foyer ceiling lights! Not in the home of course, but adds to the costs significantly  Or where the external parts require complicated scaffolding arrangement to access work which needs doing.

    There are laws regarding 'reasonable adjustments', but these tend to be centred more towards what I would call minor adjustments and can vary from one landlord to another. 

    Sorry for the long post, as I said I do not disagree with you, but life is rarely as simple as it should be. Being an inclusive society should not mean those needing adjustments having to always battle for them.

    As an individual I stood alone.
    As a member of a group I did things.
    As part of a community I helped to create change!

  • pollyanna1052
    pollyanna1052 Community member Posts: 2,032 Disability Gamechanger
    Rifi7 said:
    Pollyanna
    Did you manage to get your respite sorted out? I know you were having trouble with your funding with that?

    Hi Rifl, the answer is a very dismal one.


    I did go to look at a newly built nursing home. Never seen such opulence in a home! Wall décor, lighting, furniture and floorings were of a very high spec...but so of course is the cost to stay there...I was quoted £850 - £1,015 a week! My `allowance` is £750, hence I would have too pay the difference myself.


    No can do...not with already paying £230 a month for regular care. Social worker advised me to look for cheaper and try to negotiate the price down!


    Watch this space...I aint beaten yet!
  • Rifi7
    Rifi7 Community member Posts: 198 Pioneering
    Hi Pollyanna 
    I feel your pain. I think I suggested Revitalise to you before and I think they are roughly the same amount. I do feel sorry for people who don’t have anyone and get put in dismal homes. My mums had dementia and when she first got this heart wrenching condition, we went to look at care homes. Some places I saw, I wouldn’t put my dog in let alone a loved one. Thankfully my mum is a fantastic place and very well looked after. I suppose we should be thankful we’ve got our faculties about us and can make our choices...... kind of!
  • Rifi7
    Rifi7 Community member Posts: 198 Pioneering
    Good for you Pollyanna. Have you tried contacted Age UK? They sent me a link on with fact sheet on how to complain to your local council. It’s a very interesting read.
  • pollyanna1052
    pollyanna1052 Community member Posts: 2,032 Disability Gamechanger
    I have looked at Revitalise....very expensive...about £2,500 a week...because of my needs.


  • Rifi7
    Rifi7 Community member Posts: 198 Pioneering
    Hi Pollyanna,
    Oh no. Sorry! Let me know how you get on. 
  • pollyanna1052
    pollyanna1052 Community member Posts: 2,032 Disability Gamechanger
    Rifi7 said:
    Good for you Pollyanna. Have you tried contacted Age UK? They sent me a link on with fact sheet on how to complain to your local council. It’s a very interesting read.

    Hi, I`m worn out with angst against the council. I dont have the fight just now, so I`m letting it go.
  • newborn
    newborn Community member Posts: 832 Pioneering
    Geoark thanks What an interesting  informative post.  I don't agree there should be any such thing as council housing,  at least for the general population.   (Possibly there should be a corrective programme  of building just to fill the gap in fully accessible  housing  stock.)

    The day housing benefit began, so did the justification for subsidised housing.  The fact that there is security of tenure for life, unlike the ignored majority of renters, adds insult to injury.

    Private tenants, unlike smug secure council tenants, cannot risk antisocial behaviour,  asking for reasonable repair, let alone reasonable  adjustments.  They, unlike council  tenants, won't  have teams of council employees  running to deal with  their problems. They, unlike council tenants, pay full price of whatever the landlord chooses to charge,  and worst of all, they, unlike safe-for-life council tenants,  can be evicted with short notice without fault, for instance if the landlord wants to try switching to air b&b lets.

    Council tenants are given a large house as a reward for having lots of children,  then the security of tenure means  even if their partner soon moves out with all the children,  or the children  soon grow up and leave, the tenant stays put for life.   They can make a profit or even a business from lodgers, but the tiny token payment the councils may ask will be greeted with screams of horror at the 'bedroom tax'.

    Meanwhile,  someone who  may well be in  private rental  might  have a  disability  related  essential  need for a carer or sibling to  get a sleep,  or  for  a  dialysis  machine,  but be  refused  and dismissed. 

    Council tenants get their secure-for- life artificially low rent home as a reward for being on low income with no savings at one brief period out of their entire lifetime.  They can get a high income, an inheritance,  a wealthy partner and a major lottery win soon afterwards,  but their housing is still subsidised by fellow rate and tax payers who may themselves be desperately poor as well as enduring intolerable and insecure living conditions. 

    Worldwide,  there is an absence of accessible dwellings.  Millions  are  unnecessarily imprisoned and dependent. Even the most fit and strong occupants are only T.A.B.S., temporarily able bodied,  and all may reasonably anticipate times when through accident they cannot manage access. All may reasonably anticipate times when they need to get a disabled visitor into their home. Allowing  a single inaccessible building to  be  given planning approval is perverse.
  • pollyanna1052
    pollyanna1052 Community member Posts: 2,032 Disability Gamechanger
    A lot there to ingest Geoark. My mind wont let me take it all in at the mo.i may come back to it.

    But can I put my own experience to the housing issue? I`m not a renter but bought a house with my husband, way back in 1972....I know...eons ago!

    We had 2 daughters, brought them up to be responsible adults who contribute to the world in many ways. Our 4 grandchildren are all looking to be the same.

    So, after 48 years of marriage, we should have paid our mortgage off by now...but through becoming chronically disabled 22 years ago, our income was drastically reduced and all our savings went on adapting the house and buying all manner of aids to help me.

    For 8 years my care was free, but I`ve had to start paying £230 a month towards it. If and when we do manage to pay the mortgage off, we`ll have to contribute much more and if I end up in a care home, I`ll have to sell the house (should I survive hubby) and pay for all my care.

    So why did we buy a house, work hard and be responsible? My daughters will get no inheritance and our retirement is shackled.

    It peeves me, it really does!

  • Geoark
    Geoark Community member Posts: 1,463 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi, @newborn sorry for the delay in replying, just saw your post.

    "The day housing benefit began, so did the justification for subsidised housing."

    So since 1948. It was as far as I can ascertain has always included private and social renters.

    A little unsure what you mean by 'subsidised', but from the context of your text, I assume you mean the housing benefit. While there has been a rise in housing benefit, the majority of it has gone to private owners, not councils. Due to government policy since April 2016, social rents have fallen by 1% per year, reducing the cost of housing benefit to social tenants further. Add the change in policy that councils can disclose their housing duties by using private renting means taxpayers are increasingly subsidising private renting.

    "Private tenants, unlike smug secure council tenants, cannot risk antisocial behaviour,"

    Interesting concept, it is only social tenants who are antisocial. Sadly not true.

    "They, unlike council tenants, pay the full price of whatever the landlord chooses to charge,"

    Unlike private landlords, councils cannot set their rents how they want to; they have a set formula set by the government. Councils are long term landlords with buildings which built decades ago. Plus they are not so motivated by profit so are not bound so much by local housing markets.

    "Council tenants get their secure-for- life artificially low rent home as a reward for being on low income with no savings at one brief period out of their entire lifetime."

    Please see above regarding the 'artificially low rent'. The government introduced five year fixed tenancies; this was tried in Australia and proved to add more expense in administration and would move very few tenants on.  Councils and housing associations that did introduce these type of tenancies are now starting to convert them to secure tenancies for the same reasons. 

    "They can get a high income, an inheritance,  a wealthy partner and a major lottery win soon afterwards,  but their housing is still subsidised by fellow rate and tax payers who may themselves be desperately poor as well as enduring intolerable and insecure living conditions."

    This is where I am confused by your use of 'subsidised'. In the discussion of subsidies via housing benefit, they would no longer be entitled to housing benefits, and therefor not subsidised by taxpayers. If you are saying that public money is used to subsidise the homes they are not. Rents are ringfenced and in return for full control of their rents councils had to agree that their rent income would meet their housing spending.

    Your solution seems to be to put everyone in the same boat, a fast track to the type of housing that created the need for mass council housing in the first place; on this, we will have to agree to disagree.

    As an individual I stood alone.
    As a member of a group I did things.
    As part of a community I helped to create change!

  • Geoark
    Geoark Community member Posts: 1,463 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi, @pollyanna1052

    I am sorry to hear how things have turned out for you. If my post came across as unsympathetic to others or you personally that was not my intention, and apologise if I did so.

    I can certainly understand your point of view and frustration.

    As an individual I stood alone.
    As a member of a group I did things.
    As part of a community I helped to create change!

  • Rifi7
    Rifi7 Community member Posts: 198 Pioneering
    Hi Geoark,
    Its really interesting to see different points of view in regards to the housing issue. Everyone has their own opinions based on their own experiences and knowledge. It’s a healthy dialogue on the forum and I have gained different perspective by reading them. It’s very hard to think impartially when your living with your own circumstances, so for me to take a step back and reflect on my own future the decisions I have to make it’s not so black and white.
  • Geoark
    Geoark Community member Posts: 1,463 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi, @Rifi7

    On housing, I may disagree with someone but will rarely say I think they are wrong. As I said, I believe the best option is a mixture of social and private renting and homeownership. I do have some strong opinions on some of the variants, particularly where homeownership is concerned.  For example, subsidising Buy to Rent and  Shared Ownership, but they do have their place.

    I hope you find the right solution for you.

    As an individual I stood alone.
    As a member of a group I did things.
    As part of a community I helped to create change!

  • Rifi7
    Rifi7 Community member Posts: 198 Pioneering
    Yes I do hope so as well. Thank you!
  • pollyanna1052
    pollyanna1052 Community member Posts: 2,032 Disability Gamechanger
    Geoark said:
    Hi, @pollyanna1052

    I am sorry to hear how things have turned out for you. If my post came across as unsympathetic to others or you personally that was not my intention, and apologise if I did so.

    I can certainly understand your point of view and frustration.

    It`s ok Geo...no offence taken at all. Thanks.x
  • newborn
    newborn Community member Posts: 832 Pioneering
    Pollyanna indeed, why does anyone do the decent thing,  work hard, scrimp and save? When you bought a roof over your head, it was before the days of help to buy, so you saved the deposit and paid the mortgage. 

    Now, you will be punished for your thrifty lifestyle.  The 90 year olds in the Bournemouth bus shelter were being punished for theirs. They couldn't  persuade  a private  landlord  to rent to them, because  being retired  counts as being on benefits,  in the agent's  tick list, and landlords naturally don't want feckless tenants, which is not what benefits claimants invariably  are, but experience tells landlords it's a risk. Even buy to rent mortgage providers often specifically forbid letting to benefit claimants.

    The Bournemouth  couple were street homeless  when  their  previous landlord wanted to sell. The council,  correctly in law,  told them to clear off, because  they still had some savings,  so they count as non-existent as far as council housing  legislation  is concerned.   The rules  were drawn up by uninformed  civil servants,  who  could not imagine  the existence  of anyone who cannot stroll into any extate agent and emerge with keys to a private rental,  or with an approved mortgage  agreement.

    Of course, on top of the fact their homelessness was deemed non-existent by the council,  they would have had no income above the basic u.k. state pension,  the worst in the world, well below what the state itself declares is the minimum to sustain life.. No pension credit,  and not a penny of housing benefit for  them, and, as we know,  no help with care costs, no 'free' place in a care home, (indeed they would have had to pay inflated charges,  to cross subsidise their fellow residents who had taken care to be penniless).   All because they had failed their  duty to the state by still clinging on to the remnants of their life savings

    Having a home, or having enough savings to replace your wheelchair or pay for your funeral,  or in any way living within  your means, are all Very Bad Crimes. Being feckless,  spendthrift, and living beyond your means, in debt, are Good Things, which must be rewarded by taking  away from the taxpayers purse, to help the  squanderers to spend spend spend.

    Subsidised housing is just that. Subsidised.  Often the rents are a small  fraction of  the worth, creating the lucrative incentive for unofficial subletting.  A recent  case was a man with a string of properties and a string of council  tenancies, producing  a fortune.  The subsidy goes to the bricks and mortar of a council house, regardless of the needs or finances of the occupants with a tenancy for life. Jimmy Savile kept a council house, so he was spared the trouble of renting at full market price.    

Brightness

Complete our feedback form and tell us how we can make the community better.