- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Facebook
Worcester News
Like us on Facebook
Worcester News Sport
Like us on Facebook
Anger as council brings in charges for alarm service (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Anger as council brings in charges for alarm service
10:40am Monday 12th November 2012 in News By Tom Edwards
THOUSANDS of pensioners across Worcestershire are being asked to pay for “vital” alarms in their own homes.
About 6,500 people could be affected by a county council bid to save money on a 24-hour alarm service.
The alarms, activated by pulling a cord or pressing a button on a pendant, link to either housing association wardens or specialists working at a Malvern call centre who can contact emergency services.
Until now pensioners on housing benefits were given the service free under a strategy called Supporting People.
Now council chiefs are consulting over a charge – a move which has angered many elderly people.
Ann Jones, aged 83, who lives at Himbleton House sheltered housing complex in St John’s, Worcester, said: “I’ve used it three times this year alone for my heart – it’s a wonderful service. It’s been free until now, I don’t understand it.”
Fellow pensioner Joan Warner, 81, said: “If I’m asked to pay I just can’t afford it.”
Council chiefs have refused to reveal how much money they are thinking of asking for, but say the 6,500 people who get it free are subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of £914,000 a year.
The customers include mainly elderly people, but also some vulnerable under 65s who have a range of disabilities and require a 24-hour alarm.
Some live in their own private properties but many live in homes managed by their nearest housing association or a sheltered complex.
Pensioners not on housing benefits can also apply for a call alarm, and are means tested. Council chiefs say many of the fee-payers fork out between £1 and £4 a week, which is unfair when so many get it for free.
About 2,000 letters have gone out to customers asking them for views on what they would be prepared to pay.
Elaine Carolan, lead joint commissioning manager, said: “Currently there are different criteria in place to determine whether someone should receive a call alarm funded by Worcestershire County Council.
“This has resulted in people who use a call alarm paying different amounts for the monitoring of their call alarm – some people pay nothing while others pay as much as £4 a week.
“In Worcestershire we hope to move to a system where everyone will have access to the same service at the same price. This could result in some people paying more than they currently do for their call alarm.”
She also said the move was part of a revamp of the alarm systems, which means the old hardwired boxes will be phased out and replaced with modern units that plug into telephone lines.
FACTFILE
- The call alarm service is free to 6,500 people in Worcestershire who are eligible for housing benefits
- They get cords placed in rooms of their house and/or a pendant around their neck
- When activated, an alert goes to a local housing association warden between 8am and 10pm
- Alerts after 10pm go straight to Worcestershire Telecare, based in Malvern, which has access to family contacts and 999
- Voiceboxes are also placed in properties so if they fall, they can still hear a voice on the other end
- People not eligible for housing benefits are means tested for the alarms and can be asked to pay between £1 and £4 a week – there are about 1,000 of these
- At least 1,400 of the free customers are based in Worcester, and the rest spread around the county
- Alarms for non-paying customers cost taxpayers £914,000 per year
CASE STUDY
DAVID Mease, 79, who lives in Himbleton House sheltered housing complex in St John’s, Worcester, with his wife Mary, has had a heart attack and a stroke.
The former shipyard worker said the alarm system was a “lifeline” for many pensioners.
“I’ll give you an example – one day it was late at night and I heard this big bang in a room nearby,” he said.
“I pulled the cord and soon enough paramedics turned up – it turned out this woman had taken a nasty fall out of bed and hurt herself.
“She couldn’t reach the cord but it was a good job I reached mine. I’ve had a couple of incidents like that – these alarms are pretty vital. A lot of people won’t be happy with it. They will pack it in rather than face making a payment.
“It’ll be all about who can afford it, rather than on a basis of need. These alarms are a lifeline.”
Comments(23)
Handcart
says...
12:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12
All support and care services need consistent and fair central funding from a fair taxation system.
Matthew Jenkins
says...
1:27pm Mon 12 Nov 12
According to the Council's own website the Supporting People strategy has actually saved millions of pounds.
Hwicce
says...
1:51pm Mon 12 Nov 12
As for the case study it proves that technology isn't necesarily the answer - "She couldn’t reach the cord", so if she didn't have a cord it wouldn't have made a difference. David Mease could have used a phone to summon help he didn't have to pull the cord, it was easier for him to use a cord but the outcome would have been the same.
Samboy
says...
2:33pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Hack
says...
2:40pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Hwicce
says...
3:21pm Mon 12 Nov 12
As you suggested if the service doesn't work, or there is a better option then yes it should be withdrawn.
green49
says...
4:22pm Mon 12 Nov 12
These personal alarms are a must for infirm and badly disabled people, there have been some pathetic consultation on this and its result is to refuse any change as it will be double the cost it is now and it will be paid in part by the very people who cannot afford it but the Council yet again are ignoring it, as i said before it is beginning to show predjudice against the most vunerable as its there services that are being cut due to incompetance yet again.
green49
says...
4:44pm Mon 12 Nov 12
1:27pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Totally agree JB. Once again the cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable and contradict the County Council's promotion of such devices as a justification for other cuts to social care.
According to the Council's own website the Supporting People strategy has actually saved millions of pounds.
I can confirm that it has saved millions mainly from unscrupulous service providers who are rigoursly monitored as they try to rip off the system, supporting people is one of the few departments that should be totally kept although now understaffed due to cuts again.
biff kirtons
says...
5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Matthew Jenkins
says...
6:24pm Mon 12 Nov 12
biff kirtons wrote:If you can't afford it, then it needs to be free.
i dont think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the worcester news each day i dont think its an unreasonable charge to make.
mayall8808
says...
6:56pm Mon 12 Nov 12
5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12
I don't think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the Worcester news each day i don't think its an unreasonable charge to make.
You could apply the same logic to care homes then? it seems grossly unfair to have the biggest beer drinking, drug taker, chain smoker in care for free and the person in the next room having to pay about £600 a week because he has worked and done the right thing having paid his way all his life?
take a deep breath
says...
7:13pm Mon 12 Nov 12
mayall8808 wrote:I read in the article above that........"Council chiefs say many of the fee-payers fork out between £1 and £4 a week, which is unfair when so many get it for free".............we
biff kirtons says...
5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12
I don't think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the Worcester news each day i don't think its an unreasonable charge to make.
You could apply the same logic to care homes then? it seems grossly unfair to have the biggest beer drinking, drug taker, chain smoker in care for free and the person in the next room having to pay about £600 a week because he has worked and done the right thing having paid his way all his life?
ll, tell the councils chiefs I pay my council tax and there are hundreds in this town who don't because of our benefit systems. And, I pay my rent and there are hundreds who have theirs paid for them, again because of our benefits system.....FAIR/UNFA
IR?????.....
biff kirtons
says...
7:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Biggles
says...
10:01pm Mon 12 Nov 12
.
And that goes as much towards unmarried mothers, and it does the elderly.
.
I think we may be headed a little towards that, and I'm not sure it is such a bad thing.
Jabbadad
says...
12:45am Tue 13 Nov 12
The big push for Care in the Home was just to save money, and getting relatives to carry out unpaid care, and to avoid placing older Frail people in residential care homes again based upon costs.
Now there has been a U TURN away from Care in the Home, whereby the costs used as a guide will be the value of a now much lower cost of Residential Care Home places.
What is not being explained is that those who are getting large payments for Care in the Home, have illnesses that would need Nursing Care Home places at £1,000 and more per week, or hospitalisation at £3,000 per week.
They aren't saying too loudly that members of a family might be asked to contribute towards future Care costs, and that the family homes would be included as assets to pay for these additional costs. Yes there is a shortage of money available to local government, but this and previous governments continually put others in front of our own people.
Until the UK address immigration and massive Tax Evasion by the rich and multi nationals, we won't move towards solving our own problems.
mayall8808
says...
7:08am Tue 13 Nov 12
ll, tell the councils chiefs I pay my council tax and there are hundreds in this town who don't because of our benefit systems. And, I pay my rent and there are hundreds who have theirs paid for them, again because of our benefits system.....FAIR/UNFA
IR?????.....
It is all means tested and thats why there is a difference it is based on ability to pay, yes its not a great system but at least the most vunerable get help.
green49
says...
8:57am Tue 13 Nov 12
7:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12
unfair. the ones who have lived a thrifty life lose out. my point entirely.
Quite agree but any suggestions on how we make it fair to all?
I say you get basic help and pension if you contribute nothing to the system, there should be another level of help if you work and do the right things that are expected of you,
After that level then you may have been lucky enough to have money and can fend for yourself but anyway you look at it it needs to be the fair factor to all in the end.
Jabbadad
says...
11:40am Tue 13 Nov 12
Now with essential services such as Telecare, which by the way was heralded as the safety net for those having / needing care, and who the politicians wanted to stay in their homes, and these are all means tested, would suggest that the financially better off who begrudge these less well off people any Benefits are humbugs of the first order. I don't get financial help (other than my State Pension) but I don't begrudge older people any help at all.
There may be a few isolated cases, but these are a lot less than those who have got through life not paying the full entitlement.
And if any of you think that if money's which are taken off older people will come to you, just dream on.
Do you think that politicians and civil servants who make huge mistakes costing we tax payers millions, are held responsible, dream on. One reason why there isn't enough money to go around is due to this country being run by A BUNCH OF AMATEURS. Who simply walk away from the mess they cause, and sometimes get a promotion.
When did we see any politician or senior civil servant get the push for crass bad judgement?
Handcart
says...
2:13pm Tue 13 Nov 12
I don't recognise Jabbadad's guess of £1000 per week being saved by (cheaper) care at home. There is simple maths going in to this - if it's cheaper in a care home for older or younger, this is the rate that will be paid - and it won't cover a place in most care homes, sadly. If you want more expensive care, family 'top-up'.
PS Green49 - please continue to put your views here, as I intend to. It's not a free country, I know, but still...
Handcart
says...
2:13pm Tue 13 Nov 12
I don't recognise Jabbadad's guess of £1000 per week being saved by (cheaper) care at home. There is simple maths going in to this - if it's cheaper in a care home for older or younger, this is the rate that will be paid - and it won't cover a place in most care homes, sadly. If you want more expensive care, family 'top-up'.
PS Green49 - please continue to put your views here, as I intend to. It's not a free country, I know, but still...
thebest1
says...
4:37pm Wed 14 Nov 12
thebest1
says...
9:19pm Wed 14 Nov 12
jb says...
11:19am Mon 12 Nov 12
What a great social care system we have that puts fear into the elderly, disabled and vulnerable instead of supporting and protecting them.