Date Permanent Resident at Care Home?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #31763

    Hi there,

    I appreciate this is in relation to a local process here in Rhondda but I’m looking for a definitive answer to this question and would also be extremely appreciative if anyone could point me to any formal guidance/legislation/CD to support it…

    Basically, I want to know (generally speaking) what date I should use as the date a person becomes a permanent resident of a care home –

    a) Date we receive on memo from our finance division (on behalf of the customer/care home) stating physically moved in as a permanent resident, or

    b) Date of social worker review which is generally 4 weeks after they physically move in (date arranged by social worker where decision is made at that point on whether the care home is meeting the person’s needs or whether the customer needs to be moved elsewhere)

    Obviously liability/unavoidable notice will come into play in individual cases but as a starting point which of the 2 dates above would you use? I think the confusion lies in the terminology (permanent resident) used on the memo from the finance division opposed to the ‘review date’ terminology used by the social worker?

    Thanks in advance of any help on this!



    It’s the date that the decision is made that the clt will not be returning to their old home.

    [quote:0be1e46f8a]whether the care home is meeting the person’s needs or whether the customer needs to be moved elsewhere[/quote:0be1e46f8a]
    In this scenario it’s clear that the clt will be staying permanently in care, where he’s cared for doesn’t matter – He won’t be going home anyway.


    Thanks for that,

    That’s where my dilema lies – in so much as the customer may ‘decide’ on day 1 that they want to remain at the care home permanently but the formal process of the ‘review’ still takes place regardless, as I say, generally 4 weeks after they have physically moved in. So should we use this ‘review date’ as the ‘once-and-for-all-date’ where decision was made to become permanent resident?


    The question is a matter of fact not of law, and I think you need to exercise caution when using any dates given by social services.

    There was a housing case Hammersmith and Fulham v Clarke and Clarke (20th November 2000) which involved among other things the right to buy.

    Mrs Clarke signed a document supplied by her social worker which indicated that she was going to remain in residential care. Hammersmith aborted the RTB application and took proceedings to reposses the flat.

    The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Clarke had not been able to demonstrate any settled intention and so she retained her secure tenancy and her right to buy.


    That’s useful to know, thanks for the advice.

    If the memos we receive could just simply specify ‘intention to return YES/NO’ at the point of entering the residential home then that would make life a whole lot easier – probably 90% plus would be ‘no intention to return’ and we could deal with them pretty quickly (subject to potential 4 week unavoidable notice of course 😉 )


    See the case of “Selby and Another” (CH/1854/2004) – a [u:4e6410c7df][b:4e6410c7df]very[/b:4e6410c7df][/u:4e6410c7df] important decision about trial periods in care.

    That part of Reg 7 is worded differently from the rest: it only requires that the person enters the care home with the intention of returning shouold things not work out. Whatever happens over the next 13 weeks, the claimant is treated as occupying the home s/he is thinking of leaving. This means that any notice period – even a period in excess of four weeks – can be covered as long as you don’t go beyond 13 weeks in total.

    So, in any case where the move to residential care was not set in stone from the outset, the claimant should be good for 13 weeks’ HB on the old home come what may.

    But if the move was intended to permanent from day 1, for heavens sake why not give notice there and then? The fact that notice was not given suggests the intention was not set in stone and so it was de facto a trial period.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.