Ruling halts removal of sheltered housing wardens

Readers' comments (14)

• 

  Joe Halewood | 23/09/2009 10:24 am

  It has been reported that this case has progressed to JR proceedings principally because Barnet did not consult its older vulnerable tenants.
  
  Is the lack of consultation a "challenge" that delays the process of (imposed) change? It would seem so according to the comments of the Councillor above.
  
  Yet again I cant help noticing the duplicity and hypocrisy that councils have in such matters. "Challenge" - on of the four 'C's of Best Value is seemingly acceptable when councils challenge others, yet distinctly unacceptable in their view when someone challenges a council. The challenger in their view becomes an irritant and nothing more and they adopt an overt strategy of "how dare they challenge us." The policy of the council knows best but doesnt know best value.
  
  A "No Frills" approach to sheltered housing? Does this mean - as it appears - if you have support needs you have to pay and the higher the need the higher you pay? No wonder the council wanted to simply impose such an approach as the likelihood of such a strategy being agreed by consultation is highly remote.
  
  The principle of making the most vulnerable pay more is simply abhorrent. It is nothing more than a tax on vulnerability and woe betide you if you have a support need as more and more of your limited pension will need to be used to pay for support or you do without. Services based on need and that being free at the point of delivery is the cornerstone of the NHS. It seems this proposal or more correctly dictat by Barnet is similar to private health care imposition for vulnerable sheltered tenants.
  
  Seems to me Mike Freer, that it is not the reform of the public sector that is needed, but the reform and removal of those who arrogantly wish to impose such abhorrent dictats. Was this on your manifesto at the last local government election?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• kass | 23/09/2009 11:19 am

  "Councillor Mike Freer, leader of Barnet Council, said: ‘I am confident that this will not go to a full judicial review. But I am disappointed that we will be spending time with lawyers when we could be spending it developing a new and better service for residents..."
  
  Mike Freer as you state you wish to give new and better services to your residents have you ASKED each one of your residents what THEY need and NOT what you want to provide?...
  If you really think a politician should be a honest representative of the wishes of the people, why don't you try doing that?
  The answer you'll get is that they want their live in wardens and nothing like what you intend to impose on them against their wishes.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Joe Halewood | 23/09/2009 12:09 pm

  I could easily carry on with comments about Barnet and its leader. The £27m it lost in Icelandic banks when its head is a financial consultant spring to mind as do many other easy point scoring exercises. Political dogma led provision is another (and its wrong whether its left or right-wing inspired.)
  
  Yet, having looked briefly at the stated reasons why the wardens are removed we find the reason given to be better service and more effcient service provision - thats the claim anyway.
  
  This is superficial claptrap.
  
  If you reduce the overall budget as is sought here you must reduce the service provision. After all, if the cost of delivering an hour of support is the same then a reduced budget will and can only deliver less.
  
  However, as national figures from all support providers nationally clearly show, the cost of the replacement floating support per hour is more expensive than an accommodation based service. So a reduced budget delivers even less support and therefore cannot by definition be more efficient.
  
  Secondly, floating support is an inferior service to accommodation-based support in terms of its quality, speed of reaction and in the key term of reassurance to its tenants or customers. So it must be an inferior service.
  
  Hence these proposals provide less support and that support will be inferior to what is in place now. Therefore the proposals have no ecominoc or qualitative or customer service benefits at all - in simple terms they cannot be better in terms of economy or efficiency or service.
  
  This dogmatic imposition is wrapped up in the guise of efficiency is nothing more than spin blinded by political dogma. It will if implemented reduce the service level and quality of service to its customers and will make them pay more for that inferior service or choose out of financial limitations not to be supported.
  
  So even when we take the emotive arguments away of 'vulnerable older people' and dont attack Barnet or its leader on political dogma grounds, or even on legal or moral or any other terms, this proposal is still exposed as a sham in economic and service terms.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Harry Lime | 23/09/2009 1:07 pm

  In no way do I agree with the arbitrary removal of accommodation based suport but it's clear that there will be an overhaul in the provision of these services due to the finnances involved. I think there needs to be an "uplift" in the age of residents eligible to join such schemes. 55 is no longer the appropriate benchmark for when people are likely to require this level of care, most peole of 55 are still i work and intend to be, so the notion that they would automatically require this service, or indeed be required to pay for it is something to be challenged. The reality is the shortage of housing options means that when people become 55 they move to these schemes as an attractive option for their future, not necessarily for the immediate. I used to have a sheltered scheme (with resident warden) for 65 units, I'd estimate 15-20 of those fell into the category where they paid for services (or more likely HB met) that they didn't really need.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Tatty | 23/09/2009 1:37 pm

  The traditional warden service is out dated and does not meet the needs of customers. When I have spoken to residents in sheltered housing about the Warden service most dont use it and seem to think its something they may need as they get older. Local gov dont provide insurance services for any other group so why should this be different?
  Floating services offer a more tailored services based on need and not tenure.
  I have been to many homes in sheltered schemes where alarm call pulls have been tied up near the ceiling. If someone doesnt feel they need an alarm why do they need a Warden?
  When residents have been consulted by providers about the replacement of wardens by floating workers they have been given the option for paying for the wardens service but this has not been popular.
  Services funded by local gov must serve those in greatest need and by freeing up finds from tenure based support means that workers can visit people who live in the wider community not just those living in schemes.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Vernony | 23/09/2009 3:29 pm

  Well said Joe.
  
  So many people tell me that with floating staff they seem to spend all their time on the computer, the logic of this is not immediately obvious until one realises that
  where you have floating or mobile staff the first thing they have to do when they come into a Sheltered scheme is to log onto the computer to see the comments and actions taken by the last operative. When present operative goes off duty they have to update the computer with what they have been doing and what actions they have taken. In a half hour visit this does not leave a lot of time for the people who they are supposed to be visiting. When one adds that there is bound to be some time spent on the road between locations to be visited, there seems to be an awful lot of non productive time there somewhere !
  
  Looking at what councillor Freer has to say to say. I wonder, is his better service to be based upon the Kent model where one support worker sees 100 people per day with, of course, journeys in between; Or the lesser London mode,l where they see 75 residents in a 5 hour period - which has been described to me, by a SHUK member, who shadowed it as "chaos" !
  
  There is no reason at all, that I can see, why the JR should not go all the way, unless Barnet council change their minds, that is. The residents were promised a certain level of service when they opted to live in Sheltered Housing and their decision to move into it was based upon that. Does councillor Freer have a problem with people demanding their rights ? One presumes he defends his own rights in anything which personally affects him.
  
  Sincerely
  
  Vernon J Yarker
  Chairman
  The Sheltered Housing UK Association
  www.shelteredhousinguk.com
  mailbox@shelteredhousinguk.com
  twitter.com/SHUKAssociation

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• John Braine | 23/09/2009 4:01 pm

  Barnet Council seem to make it their business to drive through unpopular service cutting proposals and dress it up as part of a business efficiency model. I have no idea, and I don't want to know what an "Easy Jet" Council is but I'm a Council Tax payer there and support the right of sheltered housing residents to be consulted on and have control over how their warden services are provided.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• tmcnabb40@yahoo.co.uk | 23/09/2009 7:43 pm

  After reading shuks newsletter, where the chairman , mr. yarker states " i have no idea what the implications will be for the 55 cases she has for sheltered housing schemes" in reference to the "witchunt" tribunal this great lady yvonne hossacks had to endure, i can assure mr.yarker [ i never saw him attend or ask his members too] those who attended in wheelchairs and sticks at that tribunal and those unable to because of poor health [ but in conscience and spirit], could tell him the implications. I also note he mentions panorama but never mentioned the one person who was prominent throughout and spent 7 hours with the panorama crew Mr. fred o,donnell, [aged 90 on november] perhaps mr yarker should get his feet on the ground.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• tmcnabb40@yahoo.co.uk | 23/09/2009 8:02 pm

  tatty, with the greatest respect, the residents you are talking about should be in general needs accommodation, if you know as many schemes and residents as i do, you will find them telling you councils deliberately put general needs residents into sheltered housing to negate the righteous cause the genuine have its called "dirty tricks" this example being only one of many. Had you watched panorama titled "gimme shelter" aired on the 24th august, not one resident wanted the removal of their resident warden and despite council "officers" doing an "escort" to a sheltered housing residents home they did,nt achieve their aim of cajoling an elderly lady to voice their propaganda here in northampton.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  Joe Halewood | 23/09/2009 9:28 pm

  So 75 people being seen in a day is chaos - I fully agree and fitting that in with travel time means that cant be called support. At most it means 5 minutes per person and probably nearer to 2 with the travel. Extraploate this and it means only 2.5 to 3 hours support is delivered by one support worker per day.
  
  Compare this with a 65 person unit and a resident warden - working 7.5 hours or 450 minutes per day - thats about 7 minutes per person or 3 times the amount or level of service and support each and every day.
  
  One key failing that number chrunching commisioners fail to see and fail to understand is that support is not all proactive. Much of it is reactive as well to situations, such as falls etc in sheltered housing. In fact much of the SP 'great and good' in commissioning fail to realise that support is both reactive and proactive and also preventative.
  
  In say DA or EA homeless hostels for example the majority of support is reactive and preventative. Yet the 'great panacea' that commissioners believe FS to be is only planned or proactive. Such as you get 2 minutes every third wednesday or some such other nonsense.
  
  Additionally, when people entered resident warden sheltered housing pre 1996 the provision of a warden was a legal right covered under HB.
  
  The Barnet / Kent and others mass floating support models allow vulnerable people to only get support when it suits the provider and not when needed and also excludes preventative and reactive support elements....and costs more per hour.
  
  Floating support is incredibly expensive and a much lesser quality of support and exists to serve 75 people per day in the minds of fantasists and dogmatic and economically ignorant commisioners.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment