My note on 'Solicitors' appeared several times on the old MSN forum and several members have suggested that I repeat it here and NO it is NOT a list of recommended law firms because apart from anything else I have yet to find one who really understands this whole continuing care funding shambles/rip-off!



Anyone consulting solicitors should proceed with caution:

(1) They are a business and as such are 'in it for the money' and where property is involved they'll see a chance to make a real killing!

(2) Many people achieve the same result at far less cost by applying to their own situation the free advice and experience of those posting on this message board and visiting www.continuingcarecampaign.info Also check out www.nhscare.info

(3) You can always ask the 'clerk of the court's office' at your local county court for guidance on court procedures - but not on the law - and you'll be surprised how much you can do without the assistance of a solicitor. Your local public library is also a mine of information!

(4) Much of what solicitors will tell you is based on ignorance/misinterpretation of the law and NHS /DoH propaganda surrounding the present continuing care shambles.

(5) Solicitors are really only needed when it comes to litigation - although anyone can appear as a 'litigant in person'. But first take advice from someone who has done it as there are many pitfalls! (You will also need to do a lot of preparatory work!)

(6) Always ask for an estimate of their fees, set a costs limit on them and get a written quotation.

(7) Ensure that they will seek to recover ALL their - and your - costs and expenses plus interest, as part of your claim and make sure you understand the implications of an 'out of court' and a ‘full and final’ settlement.

(8)Treat all 'No win - No fee' offers with great caution! A 'win' may mean you hand over 20% or more plus disbursements. Tell them that you expect them to recover ALL their costs and fees from the other side. A 'win' means that you were a victim of fraud - and thus entitled to be returned to your financial position prior to the fraud..

(9) Before consulting a solicitor be very clear of exactly what you wish to achieve - and ask plenty of questions, particularly about how they propose to achieve it!

(10) Look for free legal advice and assistance: Was (or is) the patient/claimant a member of a trades union. If so, contact them first as many have their own legal department. Visit your local CAB. They may be able to provide free legal assistance, particularly if the patient/claimant is/was in receipt of state benefits - including pensions. Also check out what help you can get from 'PALS' (Patient Advice and Liaison Service) and 'ICAS' (Independent Complaints Advocacy Service – which it most certainly isn’t!). Also try 'Age Concern' 'Help the Aged' The Alzheimer's Society' Etc. for (free) advice and information.

Do all the forgoing before you consult a solicitor. Under the Legal help (previously the ‘Green form’) scheme you may get up to a half hour of free legal advice – so just ask and shop around for one who does 'legal assistance' work! Discuss any problems with the Law Society, particularly legal fees. If these appear excessive ask the LS to 'Tax' them - which means check for accuracy and fairness, NOT report them to the taxman!

Finally, remember that 'experience counts' and many campaign and forum members have been through all this before you! Many have won and can tell you how but some haven't and can tell you why so don't be afraid to ask!
Steve Squires. 2006.(amended September 2009)

Footnote: Derek Cole MA (Law), LL.B (Jesus College Cambridge) who provided invaluable legal advice when we first started our campaign is in good health but no longer able to offer personal legal assistance. He has therefore requested that claimants no longer contact him.

I have had a call to ask for a link to information on judicial review which as I said elsewhere, is available on 'HM Courts Service' website. Viz:
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1220.htm#seven

"Section 6
Is there a fee to pay and if so, when should I pay it?

6.1 A fee of £50.00 is payable when you lodge your application for permission to apply for Judicial Review. A further £180.00 is payable if you wish to pursue the claim after permission is granted (Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2004).
NB - If you are in receipt of certain types of benefits you may be entitled to exemption/remission of any fee due."

Esquires wrote "I regularly get calls from solicitors asking my opinion from which it is clear that they haven't bothered to get off their backsides to bone up on the subject! I have yet to find a solicitor who really understands this disgraceful shambles OR the outrageous behaviour of the NHS and social services in their frantic drive to ensure all those who CAN pay DO pay for the 'free NHS care' for which they have already paid, often through a lifetime of taxation. The NHS will cost British Taxpayers £105 BILLION this year - yet the NHS say they can't afford to pay!"[/quote]


I can personaly vouch for what Esquires has said here, on many ocassions speaking with stephen on the phone he has had to put me on hold to speak with solicitors seeking his expert advice, Remember Esquires along with Derek cole Understand the law Better than those who wrote it

Mick

P.S I forgot to mention, the help advice and letters written For me By Stephen Squires Without the need of solicitors COST Me nothing, Mother has got
continuing care Thus i will be forever gratefull to Stephen Squires , Thank you Esquires for all the help so far This family are very gratefull

Mick

Catkin wrote:It really is not helpful to imply that solicitors, many of whom have years of expertise in these issues, don't understand what they are doing and are ignorant and misinterpret the law. . . It is absolutely NOT the case that you only need a solicitor when it comes to litigation either. A solicitor can give you a very good opinion on tactics and whether the PCT / SHA is complying with the law . . . Can I suggest that the advice about solicitors is removed from this website because it's just not right?

Although it's difficult to make general comments about solicitors, my own experience of seeking advice from a couple of them supports what Esquires has said. Both solicitors appeared not to understand the basic complaints procedure and could not answer some fundamental questions I had.

If you have the time and patience, my advice is to do the research yourself and fight the cause on your own but seek help on forums like this from those who have been through it too.

Mark

I can verify a great deal of what Esquires has already said about Hugh James. It is true they have had successes, but you can liken this to a dart player who takes a huge fistful of darts and then throws them at a dart board. Some will stick, and get high numbers, but a number will fall down on the floor.

Someone entering the room will immediately be struck by the skill of the dart player, completely ignoring probably the fallen darts.

They do have a curious way of dealing with cases, as a number of original documents which are in my possession, demonstrates. Another group of lawyers who also are in the same field of this type of healthcare, have described them as a 'factory' -during a telephone conversation which was accidentally recorded. And this is probably very much near the truth.

One of the people they hire as an "expert witness" is a certain Professor Kevin Gournay. For a start, he is recognised as being fully knowledgeable in his own field - which is psychiatry.

However, Hugh James hire him to give his opinions on cases where the disabilities are purely physical, and there is no history of mental illness.

These solicitors argue that he is "eminent"and therefore fully acceptable, but let us reverse this process. Supposing a person HAS mental problems, would anyone then hire someone who is a heart or liver transplant surgeon - no matter how "eminent" - to give an opinion on their afflictions? I think this answers itself.

He also has served on many government committees, and is proud of the fact that he was awarded a CBE in the New Year honours list of 1998/99 - in other words, he is an Establishment man. And the people of this forum are fighting in one way or another this very Establishment. He also claims to be an Expert Witness on a Law Society list, but the Law Society no longer gives backing to ANY expert witnesses, mainly due to the time factor in checking all of them out. And yes, I have this in writing from the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA) and I quote:-

" There is no licensing or regulatory scheme for them. The Solicitors Regulation Authority certainly does not regulate expert witnesses."

He is also used by a number of other solicitors who are fighting for free nursing care.

But there is more. Esquires has already mentioned a number of times the fact that solicitors - and others - do not understand the Couglan/Grogan judgements, and their implications. This is certainly true in this case.

Prof. Gournay has "failed" cases before they have got to court, because - and wait for it - they do not fit "the criteria" as laid down by whichever health authority is involved. In one instance, he was asked to look into, he fully admitted that a person in a care and nursing home, had serious health needs. But did not fit the criteria as laid down by the relevant authority.

Now either this "criteria" argument is a load of rubbish, or it isn't, and as this forum knows, SHA and PCT criteria - which changes from authority to authority in England and Wales, and is not known in Scotland, has been highly criticised by eminent members of this forum.. And it is certainly one of the contentious issues that most who use this and the former websites, have targeted. Some - in my mind quite rightly - have described them as means tests.

And what's more the Law Society says so. Their guidelines which have been brought to everyone's attention on this forum, know that it is basically telling all lawyers who practice in this field of health care, that the ONLY criteria is a health NEED.

But it can also be argued that this is beyond the Professory"s remit. Criteria is a question of law - as I will later demonstrate - he should only give out opinion on purely health grounds.

However,some of the cases defended by Hugh James do NOT use Professor Gournay. Stephen Johnson was I believe one of them, and as far as I know, the "criteria" issue was never raised by the expert witness - in this case a nurse - at any time.

Some cases using Professor Gournay have been won, but as far as I can make out, this is perhaps despite his intervention, not because of it.

But there is more, and it has an ironic twist. On the old forum, a case was highlighted by another contributor, which centred on this very criteria. In court, it was being argued by a barrister,that this was irrelevant and possibly illegal.

But who were the solicitors behind this? Yes, you have guessed it - Hugh James. So it seems that sometimes they manage to be able to face both ways. So what is going on here?

And I may add that Nicola Martin of Hugh James, is a great defender of the Professor.

There is more as to how they handle their clients, but I will leave that for another occasion.

I do not wish to put anyone off trying this firm - they may be one of the lucky darts that stick. But it is a bit of gamble, and it shouldn't be.

Criteria, Is it legal, As i see it The criteria used by health authorities around the country is derived From Guidelines (GUIDELINES) Are they legal The Answere is no, Guidelines are well just guidelines They have no lawful meaning, No law has been passed to state that guidelines issued to local health aothorities are legal it is simply just guidence,That local health authorities use knowingly and willingly exploit and deliberately misinterpretate

In my opinion and it is only my opinion, The N.H.S and local authorities are all in contempt of the high court, it was ruled in july 1999, That a paitient with a primary health need is fully entitled to fully funded care at the point of need and fully the responcibility of the N.H.S the law cannot be wrong so the criteria Must be

Thus all that is needed is to prove that a paitient has a primary health need

Mick

Oh my gawd FinnMickey. I do hope that we end up in the "dart board" and not on the floor. I'm starting to regret my recent course of action now ..... >:0{

bodecia2007

Obviously can't tell how far down the road you are with this, but it MIGHT not be too late to review your options. I fully realise it is a difficult decision but you might think about it. What I am trying to show (and possibly Esquires and others) is that the SHAs & PCTs are only the start of the fight. Next comes lawyers, and those cynical (bleep) who run government are well aware of this, believe you me.

My solicitor (a nice man) told me, when I asked him for help, that the Law Society advises solicitors not to take on work for NHS CC claims unless they have specialised in the subject (which, as we all know is damn Rocket Science in itself). The ironic thing is that when I 'won' through my own perseverence and research, he came back to me afterwards and asked ME for advice!!

Well we have signed the contract so that's that I suppose. It's immaterial now anyway since my recent diagnosis I can all but pick a pen up on one of my bad days. I took it to the IRP but the stress of all this brought me to my knees. They totally ignored our evidence and just listened to the PCT's views. So now it's in the hands of the specialist solicitor but it would have been a whole different story if my health had not let me down.

bodecia2007

Well we have signed the contract so that's that I suppose. It's immaterial now anyway since my recent diagnosis I can all but pick a pen up on one of my bad days. I took it to the IRP but the stress of all this brought me to my knees. They totally ignored our evidence and just listened to the PCT's views. So now it's in the hands of the specialist solicitor but it would have been a whole different story if my health had not let me down.

Despite signing this contract, remember that such a contract works both ways. What I am saying is that be careful. Esquires suggests asking as many question as possible. Quite right, but most people do not know what questions to ask.

Ask - as casually as possible - when you are told that expert witnesses will have to be involved, who this might be. Also raise the criteria issue at this stage, and try and find out what EXACTLY is said, and note it very very carefully. And if you have time, tell the people on this forum. I feel sure that everyone will be interested.

As ever forewarned, is forearmed.

Catkin I completely agree with you about Hugh James & Co. Although I was initially sceptical about using solicitors for this sort of thing, I can honestly say that I dont think my mums case would have succeeded without their help. They were very much clued up regarding the issues and complexities of CHC (all of which is still a mystery to me!) and kept me fully informed throughout the case.
I too agreed to one of their no win no fee agreements and was quite prepared to pay their bill at the end of the case. Without these solicitors, my mum would have still been paying £2000 a month for her care, but thanks to them, her care fees are now taken care of plus they reclaimed all the fees my mum had paid to the home. I would certainly have no concerns about recommending Hugh James & Co to others, especially to those (like me) who are unsure and bamboozled about the whole CHC procedure.

Barbs

BarbBond wrote:Catkin I completely agree with you about Hugh James & Co. Although I was initially sceptical about using solicitors for this sort of thing, I can honestly say that I dont think my mums case would have succeeded without their help. They were very much clued up regarding the issues and complexities of CHC (all of which is still a mystery to me!) and kept me fully informed throughout the case.
I too agreed to one of their no win no fee agreements and was quite prepared to pay their bill at the end of the case. Without these solicitors, my mum would have still been paying £2000 a month for her care, but thanks to them, her care fees are now taken care of plus they reclaimed all the fees my mum had paid to the home. I would certainly have no concerns about recommending Hugh James & Co to others, especially to those (like me) who are unsure and bamboozled about the whole CHC procedure.



Barbs

Hi barbond m8 Welcome to the forum

Would
it be possible for you to state how much your solicitors final fee's
were so as to give other members a guide to how much they may have to
pay??

Kind Regards
Mick

Hi barbs and welcome, catkin was saying she paid £700 ish for advice, as catkins mother never left hospital she never actually paid anything so hugh james never did any work on her behalf, she felt they advised her to understand her rights and apply them to the pct /sha where the pct/sha seemed to 'lose' the claim within their system and have just resurrected it after two years, but catkin hasn't gone back to hugh james now for further advice at this stage to help her further because no money is involved, ie past fees paid/deferred to recover, so no win no fee is not applicable or a contingency fee agreement.
In our case,I contacted HJ last year, sent in the assessment forms and they agreed to take it on offeringa fee of 15% of recovery plus disbursements as no win no fee / contingency fee agreement.
We were well down the line of appeal so Nicola advised waiting for the next result, she has been very helpful as much as she could whilst we were not contracted, the amount to recover at that point was approx.£80k overall, but since our last win where with deferred and paid (if returned but deducted off the deferred) came to approx. £35k the outstanding is now about £45k , in the meantime HJ was also checking out our insurance policies and works' unions to see if they would fund as NACODS do through belddyn hancock, we weren't covered by insurances/unions, so HJ have now advised they will need to re-address it again and are asking for a fee in advance which is not excessive.
We are not too bothered about this as our case is really about interpretation now as the healthcare needs previously identified on a prior agreed period and the now the last period were always there but being managed and steadily getting worse not better, but because the drugs changed the behaviour, they put NO NEEDS in that domain, as phil shakespeares mum's case, the dst says no needs cannot be put in a domain where a need existed previously and is just being managed. that's just one area as an example.
It is a matter of principle now, firstly cos the PCT/SHA don't want to pay & will do their utmost to deny even more so now in our case as they feel invincible having a NHS Ind expert nurse assessor complete the last report, secondly cos the LA/SS can't/don't want to pay either but cannot anyway under means test law and have no balls to direct it back to the PCT as over their LA lawful responsibility and thirdly, ALL solicitors/lawyers have to make a living so they want to know the amount first then will decide the prospects. That's they way it is SJ needed legal help to finalise, it's such a conundrum.
Most cases must, if the law is applied correctly, pass the coughlan test, that is probably the solicitors thrust when challenging and rightly so, if a no win/no fee - contingency agreement is signed and they don't win, nothing is lost, if a win is obtained who can say that a win would have happened anyway if solicitors hadn't taken over/intervened.
CHC fighting as we all know is very soul destroying, debilitating and should carry it's own health warning, dealing with these perncious PCT's SHA's/ LA's, health & family does suffer.
Who knows in each case what is the best thing to do, phil shakespeare's site does show a lot of solicitor action/involvement especially re the welsh cases.??
SHAME on the PCT/SHA/LA/SS and Government

Hi Mick

My final fees came to just over £1500 for which I was very happy to pay considering the amount of work they did...and compared to the amout my mum recovered and will be saving! A job well done I'd say.

Barbs

BarbBond wrote:Hi Mick

My final fees came to just over £1500 for which I was very happy to pay considering the amount of work they did...and compared to the amout my mum recovered and will be saving! A job well done I'd say.

Barbs

Hi BarBbond m8

Many thanks for your reply , I must addmit the final cost is very reasonable, Thanks again for posting Gives members some idea of what they can expect To pay

Kind Regards
Mick

Hi /barb
That price is worth every penny if HJ did the work and won for you, could you clarify if they represented you or as in catkin's case was it for professional advice on the way to do it?
Well done, can you elucidate any nmore on how you did it! and the bones of the case! it would be most helpful to us that are fighting on!
Also is your mum still alive? have you ahd any further assessments since. that's seems to be next point of attack for the PCT's to downgrade ppl once they get the chc.

cheers and thanks for revealing your situation pauline

Our no-win-no-fee arrangement is they will take 15% plus any disburesements ? [ don't know if that the correct word ].

bodecia2007 wrote:Our no-win-no-fee arrangement is they will take 15% plus any disburesements ? [ don't know if that the correct word ].

Bodecia m8

You had better check that disbursement's bit all their cost should come from the 15% fee from any win also 15% seems a tad high m8 normaly only 10%
check it all out bodecia m8

Also if you are on benifits on the sick or disabled you should be able to be concidered for legal aid check that out aswell m8

mick

Anyone dealt with firm of solicitors called "Simpson Millar" ?

I spoke to Pannones in manchester they told me the normal no win no fee contingency agreement is 25% or £20k minimum + dibursements , which HJ said would be the costs to get the records etc, which we already had & paid for anyway, wo either way they have to be paid for by the family.
I think 15% is proably the lowest around considering Solicitor charges per hour,. the probate solicitor in our case last year in little old cumbria charged £150 ph!
If the case is started right through from first panel etc and the solicitors have done all the work then a lot of hours will have gone in & if they lose no cost, but in our case it was way beyond the first few stages and all paperwork was obtained so it would ahve been a case of hitting the ground running.
Peter, not heard of those 'simpson millar' sorry.
Pauline

£195.00 per hour plus VAT is the going rate here. Paid that recently for the services of a "junior junior trainee" solicitor - dread to think what the Chief Partner would have charged, unless it's the standard 'firm's charge.

I think people should Explore this avenue before paying out large sums of money, You may well qualifie if you are of pension age. low income living on benifits Have a disabilty Or just plain skint

Worth a try, HE who dosent ask dosent get

Mick

HERE
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/

Hi Barbond. Well done for your successful claim!
I am currently using Hugh James on behalf of my Nan who died in 2007. I was wondering how far along you were when you appointed them. We had already attended a PCT panel and managed to reclaim some of the fees and I am now at the next stage.
I completed my own submission for the PCT and I was a bit unsure about employing a solicitor at this stage but in the end, I felt that my arguments would hold more weight coming from a solicitor. Time was also an issue for me (I haven't got any to spare!) I have received the submission from Hugh James to take to the meeting and I am very impressed. They have obviously taken a great deal of time to go through over four years of nursing home and GP notes and from what I can see, there is no room for argument with the submission that they have produced. Every single point is backed up by dated evidence from my Nan's records. I would just not have had the time to do this.
As I said before, I was just wondering what stage you were at when you appointed them. Obviously, I am hoping for a good result at this stage so would be interested to hear from others who have had successful claims at IRP level.

Another company which uses Professor Gournay "on occasions" is Bindman & Partners (London) who are representing victims of another government scandal due to shiftiness and double-dealing - namely Equitable Life. They have had success in NHS healthcare cases, but once again, their attitude to "the criteria" will have many scratching their heads as they appear to endorse it.

A recent case that was put before them, whereby the Professor had not given his full support because of criteria issues, was regarded by this company as a no-no, as far as a no-win-no-fee arrangement was concerned. They were not prepared "to risk their money" as they politely put it.

BUT, they would take the case on if money was paid up front.This could be thousands and thousands of pounds. In other words, we think you are a loser, but we will take your cash anyway.

What an attitude !

Would you have any faith in any organisation who said this to you? Would you really believe that they had your best interests at heart?

What is shocking in all this, is that these firms of solicitors are helping to do the NHS nasty work for them. Indeed I believe I would go as far to say, that there must be hoots of joy from such quarters when they hear that the main expert witness for the so-called opposition, is the Professor. The NHS authorities must know of his attitude, and that possibly hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases that might be successful, are thrown into the garbage can before even getting within sniffing distance of a courthouse. With friends like this, as the old saying goes, who needs enemies.

All this totally ignores the Law Society's guidelines laid down over these very points. I firmly believe that the most legally ignorant on this forum knows more about this,than these "experts".

Also there is another interesting side to all of this. These solicitors plainly believe that the criteria is VERY IMPORTANT.

OK, so let us look at this for a moment. When a lawyer first decides to possibly take on a client, a medical examination is usually carried out by a nurse - quite rightly - to separate the needy from the phoney.

But in most cases I have knowledge of, criteria is never raised, and so this person is hardly ever informed that this could be an important reason why an action is doomed until much later in the proceedings.

Why not? If these solicitors think all this is highly relevant, why are they wasting time and money by not bringing it to their client's attention there and then as it should be?

And so I throw down a challenge to Hugh James and others named or unnamed who take on healthcare cases? (And may I suggest that any on this forum about to take legal action ask the same questions.)

What is your attitude to the SHA/PCT criteria issue? Why do you not mention this at the very start of a case if you deem it so important? What do you believe the Law Society's guidelines on Coughlan/Grogan are saying about this? Do you think that a patient who does not totally fit the NHS criteria is therefore not entitled to fully funded healthcare?

And this for the Law Society - what is your body doing to contact or discuss with such firms of lawyers who persist in apparently ignoring your own guidelines and therefore dangerously misleading many people?

I feel sure that all on this forum look forward to answers - whatever they are.

Just to remind newbies and all of this piece in the hsj and on line last year

http://www.hsj.co.uk/nhs-continuing-care-a-new-batch-of-claims?/825269.article

I've followed Paulines link and this bit has really confused me = " The first problem is that as long ago as 1999, the Court of Appeal
decided in the Coughlan case that the NHS was not obliged to meet every
healthcare need and was entitled to ration care."

Surely this is incorrect ?

I have used all these arguments in numerous letters and many review panels but am always met with the same rebuttal: "The criteria we use has been approved by DoH lawyers and we are not empowered to consider its legality, only its application"! This is akin to a court of law where the judge says "Prisoner at the bar - you are entitled to say what you will in your defence but this court cannot accept a plea of 'Not Guilty'" 'There are none so deaf as they who do not wish to hear'

Esquires wrote:I have used all these arguments in numerous letters and many review panels but am always met with the same rebuttal: "The criteria we use has been approved by DoH lawyers and we are not empowered to consider its legality, only its application"! This is akin to a court of law where the judge says "Prisoner at the bar - you are entitled to say what you will in your defence but this court cannot accept a plea of 'Not Guilty'" 'There are none so deaf as they who do not wish to hear'

I used all these posts right from the start, they have been ignored no matter how much we bring them up...Pauline

I was just thinking:
- a couple of days ago Fimac4 gave the excellent advice to always ask direct questions "which require an answer" AND to make sure everything is properly minuted....
.....so at a meeting supposing we ask the direct question: "Are you aware of the law regarding the NHS?" I wonder, would that get us anywhere to have on record: "The PCT is aware of the Law" or "The PCT is not aware of the Law"..... Hmmmmmm.... I wonder!!
Mal

I am off to my first appointment with Bindmans solicitors on Friday. Earlier in this thread Bindmans were criticised regarding the continuing care criteria. I shall be interested to see how Bindmans responds to my questions on this issue!

misslawbore


About Bindmans. I would be very interested in what happens - and so would everyone on this forum - or they should be.

It seems that the question of solicitors competence just rolls on and on! I still regularly get queries from solicitors who flatteringly refer to me as "a leading expert on care law" which I certainly would not claim personally. I suppose as a (retired) physicist I am well used to trying to make sense of the obscure and rivetingly boring and I still have a reasonably good memory! My advice then, is do not expect 'high street' solicitors to be of much help when it comes to anything more than matrimonial matters, property disputes and conveyancing, wills - or petty crime! The father of one of my claimants' is a 'family solicitor' and he cannot help his own family!
Recently I have been asked to explain the significance of the data protection act, unfair contract terms act, offences against the person,'Coughlan' the health act and human rights legislation in connection with continuing care disputes. To save time I suggest that they consult the internet - it's all there and much more besides! That's what I do although I still owe a great deal to my mentor - Derek Cole - who is a real lawyer!
Remember that you have the right to attend their so-called 'independent review panels' so go armed with a copy of the '1946 National Health Service Act'(Obtained from TSO at around £12.)and ask the panel chair to tell you precisely where in the act is it mentioned that 'criteria' can be applied to determine who is and who is not entitled to receive NHS care free at the point of need. Also download a copy of the Appeal Court's 'Coughlan' judgement and ask them exactly where is mentions that Pam's condition is 'Unstable' 'unpredictable' and 'requires the frequent intervention of a registered nurse'. Then tell them that their panel is in breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act and a refusal to approve NHS continuing care will be unlawful! For good measure tell them that you will hold them personally liable for any and all your consequential financial losses! Steve.

An interesting situation ref. a number of my 'cases' arises where the HA without reference to anyone contacted the SS who of their own volition, moved the patient into a care home and told them to send the bill to the relatives. Surely this raises several questions of law? First is the old 'Jus tertium quid' (under English law a 3rd.person who is not party to a contract cannot be made party to in the absence of prior agreement). Second: Under contract law, the person(s) who made the placement could be held personally liable for all costs and (hopefully) would not be protected by 'vicarious responsibility' because as is well known "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Third. Only a spouse can be held liable for their partners care costs. This cannot be extended to children or other family members. The forgoing is my understanding of the law which may soon be tested in court.

Hi Steve thats fine if the SS move the patient without the family or patient approval or involvement, that needs to be sorted at the beginning as of now.
What happened years ago for retro cases before the delayed discharges came in throughout the uk and since of course if they can get away with it, is that the discharge nurse informs the SS via a section 2 as is written in the discharge procedure if they think that someone is likely to require community care, the ss then contact the patient etc and if they patient or family are ignorant of the law isn't a defence?, does that caveat count for ordinary mortals or just the authorities?
This seemingly absolves them of the responsibility to assess at discharge.
The current integrated working procedure since the new framework fetters this more so than prior as the whole new framework is famed around the SAP process FIRST.
Do you agree to any assessments at all? if so what is the alternative to criteria's and new framework?
Pauline

Their entire paraphernalia of 'decision support tools' 'scoring'and 'care domains' is pure humbug! The law is clearly summed up by the Law Society: "The judgment in Coughlan clearly establishes that where a person's primary need is for health care, and that is why they are placed in nursing home accommodation, the NHS is responsible for the full cost of the package."
It is the patients condition (their illness or disability) which determines the right to NHS care - not any care or treatment, nor who provides it nor the setting in which it is delivered. If though they try to determine that the right to care based on the 'need for health care' then to deny funding to anyone with care needs equivalent to or exceeding those of Pam Coughlan is blatant discrimination - and thus unlawful. Clinicians cannot make quasi-judicial decisions because the right to care is a matter of law - not medical opinion and any 'nurse assessor' making such a decision would be in breach of article 6 of the Human Rights Act and open to prosecution and liable for exemplary damages. Steve.

Many months ago, I had a conversation with Steve Johnson, who told me about a site call "Solicitors From Hell".

I take a look at this now and again, but lo and behold, a name known to this forum has appeared - Bindmans.

Unfortunately about this site, is that it is long on opinion, but short on facts, and a number of the views put forward here are nothing better than rants, which the targets can safely ignore as just another nutter letting off steam.

HOWEVER, this company has made the list, for what it is worth.

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk/

Can someone please advise, My father has been in a nursing home for 4 years and has part paid, I only discovered that NHS continuing care was a possibility about a month ago as we were not told this was a possibility when my father was put into a nursing home from hospital, we were informed that 24 nursing care was required for my father and he needed to be put in a nursing home.
I have just sent a letter to my local PCT asking for my father to be assessed for NHS continuing care.
Is there any info that can can access that may show a step by step guide of the process, and do i need EPA over my father to act on his behalf.

Does anyone know of companies that deal with setting up lasting power of attorney?
Just 'Google' 'LPA' and you'll find several who will do it for around £50. AVOID SOLICITORS who charge £1000 plus - or do it yourself, but you may die of old age first!! Steve.

Kingdom wrote:Does anyone know of companies that deal with setting up lasting power of attorneys

http://www.publicguardian.gov.uk/arrangements/arrangements.htm

the key thing is the cover the financial side and the health and social side, whereas the enduring poa only covered finance, the lpa must specifically outline all areas, in particular all any health associated decisions,the person must makde it clear what authority the lpa has and others must act on
then the lpa must be involved in all decisions as if they were the actual person, I believe any solicitor can do this, but as alwasy you must make it clear what you want it cover and makde sure everything is covered

Bindmans, who I have already mentioned on this forum, have made the Solicitors From Hell website TWICE (and names named) .

But as I have also said before, treat this site with many, many reservations. Those complaining MIGHT just have not liked the wallpaper in the waiting room, or given tea when they asked for coffee. I think this is the way to approach this, until more facts are known about a particular case.

HOWEVER, also of interest to this forum, Surrey County Council legal department has also made it here.

Knowing how much these people are loved by members, I thought they might like to know.

I tried to access the solicitors from hell website and all my bells and whistles went off warning of a virus there.

Paul Ridge of Bindman's won a case on a letter to an IRPanel for an old campaigner from the old message board on the day.
Kind Regards,
Stephen (Johnson).

Dear all,

It has been a while since I posted about my mother's case. Things have moved on. A decision was made by Leics NHS on reviewing a Decision Support Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare form, but with no written input from my mother/family as they did not release a copy of the form to us, and predictably they accepted she had nursing needs due to her stroke, but "this level of care needs when considered together for their complexity, intensity of care inputs and /or unpredictably did not indicate that your mother met the eligibility for 100% NHS funding."

I asked for a formal review, which looks like it will be held in Nottingham in March (mother is in a nursing home near me in Suffolk). I intend to travel over for it, and will need to stay overnught and lose 2 days from my self employment. Yesterday, I received by recorded delivery, a copy for the first time of the Tool form, despite asking for it at a meeting at a meeting in May 2009 with the local social worker (I'm now told she is the local senior nursing care lead), and repeatedly since.

I feel I am at the point of needing some independent "objective" views on my mother's case, and it would be money well spent to instruct an experienced solicitor, and possibly an "expert". I fully understand all that Steve has said, but since the last post on this chain in September 2009, has anyone anything to add about solicitors and experts please.

Many thanks

neil austin wrote:Dear all,

It has been a while since I posted about my mother's case. Things have moved on. A decision was made by Leics NHS on reviewing a Decision Support Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare form, but with no written input from my mother/family as they did not release a copy of the form to us, and predictably they accepted she had nursing needs due to her stroke, but "this level of care needs when considered together for their complexity, intensity of care inputs and /or unpredictably did not indicate that your mother met the eligibility for 100% NHS funding."

I asked for a formal review, which looks like it will be held in Nottingham in March (mother is in a nursing home near me in Suffolk). I intend to travel over for it, and will need to stay overnught and lose 2 days from my self employment. Yesterday, I received by recorded delivery, a copy for the first time of the Tool form, despite asking for it at a meeting at a meeting in May 2009 with the local social worker (I'm now told she is the local senior nursing care lead), and repeatedly since.

I feel I am at the point of needing some independent "objective" views on my mother's case, and it would be money well spent to instruct an experienced solicitor, and possibly an "expert". I fully understand all that Steve has said, but since the last post on this chain in September 2009, has anyone anything to add about solicitors and experts please.

Many thanks

Hello Neil Austin,
Sorry but this post has become LOST as it was not posted in the main section.
Obviously the process has not been carried out correctly, Hugh James will carry out an assessment and will give you an opinion which I feel will be truthful re the situation.
They will not charge for this, and will offer a no win no fee arrangement if they feel the case is sufficient.
Is Nottingham the 'owning' authority?
Why is the review so long after appealing?
Remember that Intense, OR, Complex, OR, Unpredictable are not ALL to be present any one at any one time is all that is required, along wth 'of a nature' and ancillary and incidental, if nursing needs are required.

Nursing needs are not the factor for CHC, it is overall NEEDS, which may include nursing needs, Pam Coughlan has/had very few nursing needs, if any on a regualar basis, but the judge deemed her needs to be 'of a wholly different category to that which the SS could lawfully provide, place and charge' and were more than ancillary and incidental to the need for accommodation and of a nature that the SS coudl not lawfully place, provide and charge for.

neil austin wrote:Dear all,

It has been a while since I posted about my mother's case. Things have moved on. A decision was made by Leics NHS on reviewing a Decision Support Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare form, but with no written input from my mother/family as they did not release a copy of the form to us, and predictably they accepted she had nursing needs due to her stroke, but "this level of care needs when considered together for their complexity, intensity of care inputs and /or unpredictably did not indicate that your mother met the eligibility for 100% NHS funding."

I asked for a formal review, which looks like it will be held in Nottingham in March (mother is in a nursing home near me in Suffolk). I intend to travel over for it, and will need to stay overnught and lose 2 days from my self employment. Yesterday, I received by recorded delivery, a copy for the first time of the Tool form, despite asking for it at a meeting at a meeting in May 2009 with the local social worker (I'm now told she is the local senior nursing care lead), and repeatedly since.

I feel I am at the point of needing some independent "objective" views on my mother's case, and it would be money well spent to instruct an experienced solicitor, and possibly an "expert". I fully understand all that Steve has said, but since the last post on this chain in September 2009, has anyone anything to add about solicitors and experts please.

Many thanks

Read VERY carefully what is said about Hugh James and others at the beginning of this Sticky. As Esquires as always pointed out, forget about solicitors as Perry Masons fighting for JUSTICE. They are a BUSINESS, and therefore out to make profits.

Treat them VERY cautiously.

Apologies, but "have been there and worn the tee-shirt!" Having been on this message board in the background and the previous nhs care info, and spent some 5 years, enduring PCT reviews, SHA reviews, IRP`s, constant delay in releasing medical records/care records, which suddenly appear just before the panel hearing or just after, and independent experts report (which clearly states my Father`s needs were at least equal to Pam Coughlan) supported by legal advice!and then finally receiving a letter from the PHSO, stating that they believe the SHA "have not acted unreasonably" and "the only shortcoming appears to be with the explanations given". However, the issue of whether my father should have received continuing care funding, "..is not within the Ombudsman`s remit......we are unable to see that an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome..."
No real surprise there! However, the restitution process which hit the courts in late 2009, was considered an abuse of power, but the only remedy now available to the general public is judicial review, which will follow the same process, confirm that "all the boxes have been ticked" and hey presto, we are back at "square one".....No Surprise then!
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act raises the issue of a "fair and independent trial". How can, to the average "man in the street", the process of IRP`s staffed by health or social/local authority personnel, who have a direct interest in the outcome of any such positive award, could by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be independent or impartial.
So, back to square one! Down but not out.......there has to be a suitable mechanism for an independent review, where the eligibility criteria used by the PCT/SHA can be challenged........Any ideas would be well received?
Regards,
Mr Angry

I'm sorry Mr Angry but I can't help , save to say that the Ombudsman in our case has asked the PCT/SHA to look at our case again and they consider that 6 months for them to do this is " acceptable "!!. But I have no doubts whatsoever that we shall be continuing to go round in circles anyway. I have no faith in the Ombudsman PCT / SS / NHS + Co at all. I just thought that if all of them stone walled us we could take it to court ?

If you have problems with solicitors, here is a new organisation to contact. Unlike the Law Society/Solicitors Regulatory Authority there appears to be no time limit regarding complaints. They only started at the end of 2010.

Website ref is: - http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/index.html