Department of Health
Published: 16 May, 2014
guidance on charging for care and support
Back to other disregards
Only your name and your comment will be published, the other information you supply here will not be published. Required fields are marked* but it would be very helpful if you could provide the other information requested.
Please note that comments left here are public - you can also make a private submission.
Your email address will not be published. Name, email address and comment are required fields. Please note our moderation policy.
Name (this will be published alongside your comment)
What best describes you or the people you represent?
Health or care professional
Care provider organisation
If "other", please specify:
I also believe that policies like accident or illness cover should generally be fully disregarded as they are usually taken out when a person is as the guidance highlights “fit and healthy” and not reasonably thought for in the particular eventuality that a person may need adult social care support. I though disagree with quoted phrase in the guidance, as it might give the impression to potential-/service users that some of their reasonable decisions they make in regards to their future care and support needs may be scruitinised in the future by the local authority; being at odds with our new duty to comission information and advice (including independent fiancial advice)for people. As always a balance needs to be struck, but the phrase is not helpful.
I do not really believe there is much need for this to be taken into account for the financial assessment as it would only be relevant for a small group of clients. Answering another question, related to this one, at the same time I would strongly recommend for “financial property” or a term similar to this in the guidance to be elaborated on further; so not to confuse all parties on what may constitute a disregard in any financial assessment.
We would agree that bonds should be taken into account as they are an assett.
Yes, while not widely used they have been used as a mechanism for putting funds outside of the scope of inclusion in the means test. The risk to LAs and individuals will be mitigated if the Financial Sector is supported/ encouraged to provide investments products to provide funds for people’s liability for the cost of care.
Response: – These should be included in the financial assessment but there needs to be greater clarity on what element can be included as there is a lot of confusion around those with life insurance attached. Clarity needs to be provided around what elements should be disregarded
We agree that bonds should be taken into account in the financial assessment it is unfair to exclude them
We also agree with the other comments regarding compensation payments and believe that these should also be taken into account within the financial assessment.
Yes, I think monies held in Investment Bonds should be taken in to account in the financial assessment. I can see no reason why not if other investments are included, as they should be.
We agree that bonds should be taken into consideration within any financial assessment.
We agree with the proposal and think that it makes sense. It needs to be acknowledged that there may be some timescales attached to the realisation of capital from bonds which should be taken account of.
We are in agreement with the previous respondent that the issue of compensation payments made for care costs should also be included as capital, and feel that the opportunity to finally address this issue has been missed.
Perhaps a better option would be to have a hybrid option – where people can still be encouraged to have an investment – but not all of it will be taken into account
e.g. you might have someone that has invested their pension in a life insurance investment bond
should LA’s be able to take those investment bonds into account?
One view – Yes they should – however from a personal point of view – no they shouldn’t
A good option is – we could allow the disregard in relation to the life insurance – but you take into account the rest
Policy wise it seems a little bit nonsensical
With finance planning – you could choose to do that – and the LA would have to disregard the whole amount
The suggestion to make it more equitable was to disregard the element which is attached to the life insurance
This would be advantageous to the LA, as the whole amount wouldn’t be disregarded
Agreement by all on this.
yes there is currently an inequity
this is currently benefiting those with access to financial advice and time and money for financial advice – this is good for those people but whether this is good for everybody is an ethical decision
fairness – some people shouldn’t be able to lock their money away.
BUT we also need to consider the individual – do not want to lose their contribution to life insurance – is a balancing act on both sides. There are losers on both sides. Should some things be exempt? (i.e. the life assurance part)
going forward people cannot do this. Is about equity on both sides
When person dies – investment bond is cashed in and goes to their estate –is a differed payment
This is capital – people can use these bonds as a loophole to avoid paying charges as they are not taken into consideration as an asset as part of the financial assessment. LA’s would benefit – will reduce the need for legal advice, which is costly and time consuming. Where do trust funds, compensation benefits etc sit with this? In particular compensation payments that are made to cover care costs? All types of financial investments should be looked at – why is there any difference?