martin searle solicitors is proud to sponsor the 2010 Brighton Festival Fringe.

The situation

In 2006, after a lengthy stay in a psychiatric hospital against [...]]]> Summary: How a client recovered £70,000 in care home fees that his mother should not have paid and secured ongoing funded care for his mother. Thanks to initial expert advice from martin searle solicitors and just one letter.

The situation

In 2006, after a lengthy stay in a psychiatric hospital against her will, the medical team decided that Ivy, 66, had to move to an elderly mentally infirm (EMI) care home. Ivy had tried to escape from the hospital ward on several occasions. She wanted to go back to her own home but her psychiatrist said she would not be safe at home, even with carers.

The medical team said Ivy’s behaviour and particularly her inability to understand that she was unwell meant she was a risk to herself and to other people. Ivy was very angry about the decision and refused to co-operate with the move.

Ivy’s son, Chris, had an Enduring Power of Attorney to act for his mother. He was told his mother had no choice about her care and that decisions were being made in her best interests. Ivy’s social worker had told Chris that he would have to sell her house because Ivy had too much capital for social services to help pay her care home fees. The fees were £30,000 a year. He sold her house in late 2006 to ensure she had enough money to pay for her care.

Cash shortfall

In early 2009, Chris became very worried because the money from the sale of his mother’s house was running out. The social worker had told him that when Ivy’s savings dropped to £23,000, she would get some help from the local authority to pay her fees, but that she would have to move to a less expensive care home.

She told Chris that if he did not want his mother moved, he would need to pay a top-up fee to the care home to make up the shortfall between the weekly cost and the maximum local authority weekly payment. The social worker said Chris would need to find about £85 a week to keep Ivy at the care home and he would need to sign a legal agreement to promise to pay this figure every week.

Chris was determined his mother should not move - she had become settled at the care home after three years and while she still had a lot of challenging behaviour and was not easy to look after, he knew moving her after so long would be psychologically damaging.

The problem was Chris did not earn enough to pay £85 a week from his own money after paying his mortgage and the living expenses for his own young family.

Chris did not know what to do. He saw a programme about paying for care and wondered if Ivy should get NHS continuing healthcare funding. He searched online and although he and his mother lived in Devon, he found Brighton-based martin searle solicitors and phoned for advice.

What martin searle solicitors did

Care funding solicitor Cate Searle told Chris she could look at his mother’s eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare funding. However, after just a short initial telephone conversation, Cate believed the solution was much simpler. Cate said that she believed health and social services had made mistakes about their legal responsibility for funding Ivy’s care back in 2006 when Ivy was discharged from hospital.

Cate explained it was very likely that when Ivy was in the psychiatric hospital against her wishes, she had been detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This meant Ivy was entitled to after care services free of charge under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act until such time as a relevant medical officer made a decision that she no longer required such services.

Cate advised Chris to use his Enduring Power of Attorney to find out if his mother had been held under Section 3 when she was in the hospital.  This was confirmed relatively quickly.

Cate then wrote to health and social services setting out her arguments about what they had got wrong and reminding them of their legal responsibilities to Ivy to pay for her care - without charging her - under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The result

The situation

George, 89, had been living alone since his wife’s death five years earlier. He had Alzheimer’s disease and a history of hearing problems. He had [...]]]> Summary: How a client successfully challenged a decision that her father could not get NHS continuing healthcare funding to pay his nursing home fees.

The situation

George, 89, had been living alone since his wife’s death five years earlier. He had Alzheimer’s disease and a history of hearing problems. He had been getting by in his own home, with visits from care assistants, meals on wheels and a lot of support from his four daughters, who lived locally.

In summer 2008, his physical health and his cognitive functioning deteriorated rapidly. The family and the medical and social care team agreed he needed to spend some time as a temporary resident in a care home, with the aim of stabilising his condition so he could return home. George had worked very hard until he was 68 and had significant savings, stocks and shares. Using the Enduring Power of Attorney their father had made a few years earlier, George’s daughters were happy to release his savings to pay for his temporary placement.

After only a few weeks, the care home placement broke down because George’s behaviour towards the carers and other residents became very challenging. He was moved to a specialist hospital unit where the staff could manage his behaviour. He remained in the hospital for eight months.

Deterioration

Towards the end of his stay in the hospital unit, George was diagnosed as having a form of cancer in one of his kidneys. His behaviour to his carers was still very challenging, but the medical team said that he no longer needed NHS care and told his daughters to find a nursing home. A placement was identified but then George developed a urinary tract infection that lead to him being admitted to A&E and then moved to another hospital. His behaviour became more confused and more aggressive and he had to have one-to-one supervision on a 24-hour basis.

George’s daughters had hoped to get him back to his home to care for him there but were reluctantly persuaded that they could not manage his needs and that a nursing home placement would be necessary. They were told by social services that when their father’s savings had run out, they would need to sell his home to pay for his care. The family thought George’s savings would last about another year - but were not sure that he would live that long.

Misled

When George’s oldest daughter Sharon asked the doctor whether the NHS should pay for her father’s nursing home care, she was told that no-one who had their own home should expect to get anything from the state for free and that he had already had his share from the NHS, having spent eight months in the special unit.

Sharon was upset by what the doctor had said and researched the law on the internet. She asked the NHS to assess her father’s eligibility for continuing healthcare funding. An assessment was done and it concluded that George’s needs were stable, non-complex and predictable, so he would not get full NHS funding. The family had found him a nursing home placement but it had taken a long time to do this, as several care facilities recommended by the hospital and social services had refused to take George because of his complex needs. The nursing home charge would be £850 a week, with the NHS paying just £106.30 towards this.

Sharon went online and found martin searle solicitors‘ community care law factsheets and decided to ring for advice.

What we did

Care funding solicitor Cate Searle firstly told Sharon that what the doctor had told her was his personal opinion, not a correct interpretation of the law. Cate explained that if George had a primary health need the NHS should pay for his care regardless of whether he owned a house and regardless of whether he was wealthy or reliant on state pension and benefits. She added that George was not disqualified from NHS funding by having had his share in the special unit.

When Sharon gave Cate details of her father’s behaviour and physical health problems, Cate advised that Sharon should definitely appeal against the decision that her father did not qualify for NHS continuing healthcare funding. This would involve making a request for an independent review to the strategic health authority.

Cate prepared written representations for the independent review which raised the following points:

• George displayed very disinhibited, impulsive and challenging behaviour including making sexual advances to others. Staff had to use skilled interventions to manage his behaviour and sometimes these were unsuccessful.
• George was assessed as being always disorientated in time and place and always confused. It was acknowledged that he could not repeat a basic sentence and had no ability to assess even basic risks. He could not communicate his needs.
• George was highly anxious and did not readily respond to reassurance. He shunned contact from others and was easily frustrated.
• George was at high risk of falls particularly as he was unsteady on his feet and refused to accept help from carers to move around.
• George ate impulsively and seemed to have forgotten how to chew or swallow; so he often choked on food. A speech and language therapist had to prepare a risk assessment and care plan for hydration and nutrition.
• George was doubly incontinent, resisted care interventions, and suffered from frequent UTIs which resulted in a complex continence care.
• George caused damage to his skin by scratching and tearing it. It was very difficult to distract him from doing this
• George frequently refused to take medication which placed him at risk both physically and mentally.

Cate asked the primary care trust (PCT) to reconsider its decision on the basis of her written arguments, but it refused. The strategic health authority agreed to arrange an independent review hearing and six months later the family finally got a hearing date.

The result

• A week before the independent hearing, the PCT told Sharon they had decided that her father should have been getting NHS continuing healthcare funding all along.
• The PCT said it would pay the BUPA nursing home fees of £850 per week and repay the fees that had been paid by his savings in the eight months since he left hospital - a refund of nearly £26,000.
• Although George died just a few months later his family felt that the fight to get him NHS funding had been worthwhile. After years of caring for him in his own home as he wanted they believed that the authorities should have recognised that the only reason that they could not continue to do this was because of the severity and unpredictability of his health needs.

When the employment relationship comes to an end - for instance through redundancy - employers can offer the employee a [...]]]> martin searle solicitors has launched a Compromise Agreement advice service for employers and trade unions. The new service offers a professional and efficient way to sign off multiple Compromise Agreements.

When the employment relationship comes to an end - for instance through redundancy - employers can offer the employee a Compromise Agreement to legally end the relationship and prevent the employee bringing any further claims against them. For the document to be valid, the employee must receive independent legal advice. The cost of this legal advice is usually met by the employer.

When multiple staff are made redundant, different law firms may be involved and the sign-off process can be time consuming and expensive. With one of the largest employment law teams in Sussex and Croydon, the new service from martin searle solicitors gives employers a simple and efficient solution. It is also designed to help trade unions offer their members a professional and independent service that meets any time limits set by the employer.

martin searle solicitors‘ employment law director Fiona Martin says: “Where a large number of employees are being made redundant it is much easier to schedule the signing off of Compromise Agreements using a single and independent employment law firm. Because we are a team of five specialist employment lawyers, we can offer a streamlined service as well as reassurance that employees are getting the best possible advice.”

This Compromise Agreement service can be provided at the employer’s premises, or in martin searle solicitors‘ Croydon or Brighton offices. Employers meet the cost of the service which is a discounted rate to individual Compromise Agreement sign offs.

Fiona Martin adds: “When it comes to signing off Compromise Agreements, it is important employees receive independent and expert employment law advice. While we are paid by the employer, our role is to protect the rights of the individual - that also includes the right to choose another law firm should they wish to do so. This service offers the best of both worlds in terms of efficiency and expert advice for employers, trade unions and employees.”

With more than 20 stands from local recruiting media companies - including specialists in web [...]]]> The Wired Sussex Media Jobs + Skills Fair (12 - 6pm, Corn Exchange, Brighton) is aimed at sixth formers and students, graduates, those hoping to work in the media sector and media professionals seeking new jobs.

With more than 20 stands from local recruiting media companies - including specialists in web development, SEO, design, e-learning, marketing/PR , games and TV - the Wired Sussex Media Jobs + Skills Fair also has specialist panel sessions.

Fiona will be speaking and answering questions as part of the Make it into Media session (3.30pm-5pm). Fiona and other panel experts will offer advice to freelancers and those aiming to set themselves up as freelancers.

The event forms part of the successful Sussex Internship Programme Wired Sussex runs in partnership with the University of Sussex. The programme provides more than 100 internships for recent graduates at a wide variety of games, web, software development, animation, TV, e-learning, music, film and advertising companies across Sussex

In 2009 nearly 1000 people attended the Jobs + Skills Fair and the organisers are confident of an even bigger turn out this year. The event will also feature university and college stands promoting undergraduate, postgraduate and other HE training courses as well as offering relevant careers advice. An interactive Made in Brighton zone will showcase local companies’ innovative work.

During a half-day session, Fiona will explore a number of employment law issues, including the new Acas disciplinary procedure and grievance procedures [...]]]> Fiona Martin, employment law solicitor at martin searle solicitors, is to address a GP Forum Practice Management event on Thursday, March 25, 2010 at the Charmandean Centre, Worthing.

During a half-day session, Fiona will explore a number of employment law issues, including the new Acas disciplinary procedure and grievance procedures (Acas code).

Fiona will also cover other critical employment law issues including managing performance and sickness absence. The absence session will also look at disability discrimination law and what ‘reasonable adjustments’ means in practice.

For more information visit www.gpforum.com.

Cate has a nationwide repuation in this specialist area of law and has a successful track record [...]]]> Cate Searle is running a free legal advice clinic at Age Concern, Brighton, on Thursday, March 25, 2010 (1pm-2pm). Cate Searle can help with problems accessing NHS or social services and funding - including NHS care funding.

Cate has a nationwide repuation in this specialist area of law and has a successful track record helping people reclaim nursing home fees where funding rules have not been properly applied.

To book an appointment to speak with Cate at Age Concern Brighton, Hove and Portslade ’s offices, 29-31 Prestonville Road, call Age Concern on 01273 720603.

How martin searle solicitors’ employment team assisted a trade union where its members’ terms and conditions were varied and the Compromise Agreements compensated for this. This was to ensure that employees did not resign and claim constructive dismissal. By signing the Compromise Agreement they waived their right to bring a [...]]]> Summary

How martin searle solicitors’ employment team assisted a trade union where its members’ terms and conditions were varied and the Compromise Agreements compensated for this. This was to ensure that employees did not resign and claim constructive dismissal. By signing the Compromise Agreement they waived their right to bring a claim.

Situation

A large number of employees in a local authority were affected adversely by the Single Equality Bill which required job evaluations to take place to regrade positions so that there was equality for men and women. This meant that some men and women were to receive a reduced salary. There was a tight timescale for the sign-offs to be completed. The union contacted our team to arrange an efficient sign-off for its members and also for individuals who were not in the union.

What we did

We attended the workplace over two dates so that we could meet the deadline and avoid the compensatory offers being withdrawn. This would have meant the employee being issued with a new contract without being compensated. We liaised with both the human resources team and the unions to check that the agreements between the unions and the employers were reflected in the Compromise Agreements. This ensured that despite the tight deadlines the employees were fully informed of the consequences of signing the Compromise Agreement and their options if they did not sign.

The result

All employees signed their Compromise Agreements once they received our legal advice. We also saw some employees at our office to ensure we kept to the timescale. In this case, the consequences of not accepting the offer could have resulted in new contracts being issued without any compensation for the employees having their terms and conditions downgraded. The employees who refused to sign and to accept the new contract were likely to be dismissed for “some other substantial reasons” which is potentially a fair reason for dismissal.

Find out more about martin searle solicitors’ Compromise Agreements advice.

Find out more about our multiple Compromise Agreement sign-off service.