What’s your views on this?

Soldato
Joined
2 May 2011
Posts
11,878
Location
Woking
Very difficult. My initial reaction was along the lines of "give her the ******* money, what the hell?!" but then reading the article, the £500,000 trust find is supposed to pay for the girl's daily expenses for, I suppose, the rest of her life. If that's the case, £500k isn't going to last that long, and if you take a chunk out of that (probably minimum £250k) then in half the time, she'll have to be supported by some other means.

In the long term, what's better? A house now and benefits later, or a private house now and benefits in a few years time? Not sure myself.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Jan 2010
Posts
603
I can understand, especially if her daughter were to die? It would be more difficult to get the mum to sell up when that happens.
 
Permabanned
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Posts
12,236
Location
UK
So they aren't homeless. The council will adapt a property for them.
The mother was negligent so is partly responsible for what happened.
Fake news from the BBC imo, entirely typical of them to take the side of a woman just because they're a woman.
The law is right to protect the child from the mother.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,018
Location
Panting like a fiend
BBC taking the side of the women?
I just read it as them reporting what was being said and the known facts of the case.

By the sounds of it the money is in trust specifically for the needs of the daughter in terms of care etc, which would rule out housing with the possible exception of alterations needed to a property in regards to that care.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Posts
386
So, that's someone with half a million quid in social housing then ... result. Shame they can't buy a house, get DIY SOS in to sort it out so it's a perfect place for the young lass to live, and have it that the then perfectly adapted house is in trust for the youngster. As it stands, the govt. will probably find a way that the money goes back to them in fees and costs.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
Well the cost of carers does add up and it sounds like she'll require carers for the rest of her life, including once her mum has gone. That alone could well take up the entire 500k.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
1 Dec 2010
Posts
52,288
Location
Welling, London
So basically, the government give her £500k and say she can only use it for her care, thereby ensuring later in life when she needs external care, she will be able to pay for it and the it won’t cost the government any more money. If she didn’t have any money, she would get care anyway paid for by the government. The government have just wrangled a way to keep the social care bill down.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,018
Location
Panting like a fiend
Not sure people actually appreciate the astronomical costs of one to one care. I could quite easily imagine costs of 50k+ per year.
Yup

Even a care home can easily cost around 1k a week, and that's where the care costs are shared between all the people in the care home, if someone needs 24 hour care that's going to be around 4 carers (8 hour shifts, with one to cover for time off).
 
Back
Top Bottom