Item 8-Appendix 1
West Dunbartonshire Council · 5 March 2025
Back to West Dunbartonshire Council — 5 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Appendix 1: Detailed feedback on public engagement When: 21st October 2024 Venue: Clydebank Town Hall Attendees: On the 21st October, ten service users and/or carers attended with representatives from Carers of WD. Representatives from HSCP Learning disability service, Health Improvement team, SDS team, Unpaid Carers Liaison, Finance and Improvement team attended. Question Feedback from groups on proposed changes. Q1. In regards to charging policy, what are your thoughts on the proposed changes? Recognise the changes for ILF creates fairness between ILF users and SDS recipients. I've always given contributions to ILF so makes sense to continue. If people can afford to contribute, it feels fair that they should. I feel the way things are just now, people should be paying in more for their services. Nothing wrong with putting in more as long as people are left with enough to live on. It also comes down to if you can afford to live after the charges have been applied and this is important to consider when making the decision to implement. Out of all the proposals, the decrease of the discount seems the most palatable. If a person can afford it and they're left with enough to cover cost of living (particularly increasing bills) then I can understand it being implemented. Could these changes be implemented jointly with partners? Discussion of charging policy charges but also redirect to services that can help with
Page 2
income maximisation (Citizens Advice, Working4U, Carers of WD etc.) People will hear 'this will cost me money' and when its broken down it's not as scary as it appears, the public's expectations need to be managed to make the change successful. Concerns voiced about the potential combination of this change and removing the maximum discount. A reasonable change given the current financial environment, however, maximum charge must be kept if this is to be implemented. Age factor re upper limits and ILF charging are okay with me. If there has to be a reduced discount then the max charge should remain. Comes down to whether you have enough to live on after charges have been applied. Means tested changes - Why are you penalised for saving for a rainy day? Particularly if you have worked in the past. It discourages people to save or have the ability to save which could put people into debt or dire financial strains. Services are already difficult to access and there's a potential that word of mouth conversations will confuse people about the changes. The fact that max charge or cap exists means that a reduction in the discount could have been a lot worse. Q2. What impacts would this policy have on your circumstances? Need to make sure income maximisation happens and people getting all they are entitled to.
Page 3
Negative Impact on family carers with families having to find extra cash. Removal of maximum charge would cause a difficulty. Fear of costs might lead to people not taking on services. Concerns that people wouldn’t be able to afford the care that they require. Understanding that this might help recover costs from those who can afford to pay more but concerns that it would impact the most at risk. Consensus that this was not a change they would recommend for implementation regarding removing the maximum charge. Q3. What impact would this policy have on other people who live in West Dunbartonshire? WD already sees such a small amount of ethnic minority people up taking SDS, there's a real concern that further financial constraints will stop people from accessing services. All of these changes are all well and good if you already receive the service, how are the people who don't/can't access services be made aware changes are happening? Word of mouth is very powerful and expectations could be difficult to manage if peer support groups tell one narrative of how a service runs and then a person experiences a different system. The WD area is already one of high social deprivation, including high rates of poverty, this could potentially impact people who are already struggling financially. The Cost of Living Crisis is already making it difficult for people to manage and keep themselves out of poverty -
Page 4
having to choose between heating and eating - the changes could make this worse or exacerbate stress. People could give up services e.g. community alarm. Change in ILF would affect clients who have a disability. When: 29th October 2024 Venue: Clydebank Town Hall Attendees: On the 29th October, six members of the public attended, with members from Improving Lives, Mental Health network and WD Councillors representative their constituents attended. Representatives from HSCP Learning disability service, Health Improvement team, SDS team, Unpaid Carers Liaison, Finance, Improvement team attended, HSCP addictions service and HSCP Mental Health services. Question Feedback from groups on proposed changes. Q1. In regards to charging policy, what are your thoughts on the proposed changes? Agreement that difference in charge based on age is not equitable. Participants advised that there is a need for increased and wider communication about the charging policy to families in West Dunbartonshire so they can better understand the implications of the charging policy and how it affects them. 25% discount is okay especially because there is a maximum charge in place. So this maximum charge makes the 25% discount amount achievable for people. For means tested services, participants felt the maximum charge should remain, as removing it would affect the quality of life of people and we may see people opting out of services they need. Participants agreed that service users who receive ILF should be charged. There currently seems to be an historic
Page 5
inequity within the ILF funding especially based on eligibility criteria. This proposed change may help balance out that inequity and put everyone on a level playing field. Thoughts were to keep the limit for people 60+ years as it is but to lower the limit for people 18-59 years old. If you have the income where you can pay a bit more, I agree that you should pay more if you can afford it. The charge is a fraction of the cost, if you have the money then you should be using it. Should only be coming to the HSCP if you need it and not as a first resort. Q2. What impacts would this policy have on your circumstances? Change in upper limits based on age is great but it would greatly affect younger adults. Q3. What impact would this policy have on other people who live in West Dunbartonshire? Need to consider that as an aging population, the upper limit on age might have made sense at the time but if most people are above the age limit then there still needs to be some contribution to services. The needs need to be met. No problem with difference in age and charging but need to account for the needs to be met during the financial assessment. Pension age increasing has an impact on this assessment. I think that ethnic minorities maybe get missed and need to have targeted information for them. Communication to these groups is key. By engaging them in the process they can access more money / support.
Page 6
How do we encourage people to get the services they need and income maximisation? When: 30th October 2024 Venue: Concord Community Centre Attendees: On the 30th October, seven members of the public attended, with members from Kinship Carers, Shop Mobility and Glasgow Disability Alliance. Representatives from HSCP Learning disability service, Health Improvement team, SDS team, Unpaid Carers Liaison, Finance, Improvement team attended, HSCP addictions service and HSCP Mental Health services. Question Feedback from groups on proposed changes. Q1. In regards to charging policy, what are your thoughts on the proposed changes? The general consensus and argument was that the limit based on age is inequitable and unfair. The argument was that charge should not be based on age as this is discriminatory and may cause poverty especially for young people. The lingering question was “why is there a limit/barrier based on age?” It would be more useful if people’s need are accessed and services put in place based on their needs rather than basing what is charged or not charged on people’s age. If I am choosing the upper amount then it is only fair that I contribute something towards the payment. I would rather as a tax payer contribute to someone staying in their own home and not in a Care Home. SDS comes from Scot gov and has been cut by 10%. Therefore, we have got to be realistic and say something has to give. Some contribution should be made. Not the fact the HSCP wants to do this, but are being forced to do this by cuts. Can't keep things at the same
Page 7
rate as other areas of the budget would suffer. Might have no charge for same needs and income but someone else might have a charge. Suggesting that this is removed so that everyone pays the same and age isn’t a factor. Not fair that someone younger may be paying a charge and someone older wouldn’t. Don’t mind the charge, if you have someone 20 years younger and not contributing that isn’t fair. Always in favour of people contributing as you can’t expect it all while paying nothing. We are now in a position where council etc is struggling. Responsibility to contribute if you can. Re: ILF - Participants agreed to this change and stated that historically, eligibility for ILF has been inequitable, and they agree that it is okay for ILF users to contribute as long as the maximum charge applies. I agree the discount can be reduced but only if the maximum charge is not removed. Q2. What impacts would this policy have on your circumstances? Move from 50 to 25% sounds big but in reality, this wouldn’t be so big as the maximum charge is in place. Agree that again if you can afford to pay then you should be contributing. The 25% discount will have an impact on people, same with removing the maximum charge which will impact people negatively. General consensus was that the maximum charge should not be removed and discount left as it is at 50% if possible.
Page 8
For means tested services, participants felt the maximum charge should remain because removing it would affect the quality of life of people and we may see people opting out of services they need. There was a long term suggestion of annually reviewing the maximum charge to align with the current economic circumstances. Q3. What impact would this policy have on other people who live in West Dunbartonshire? If you win the lottery and still getting support but only paying for £86 maximum charge, is this fair? Should there be a max cut off or if you can afford then you should pay. If you have the extra income from selling house this would be considered. Must be practical in the approach to contributions to services. This will be a small number of people, but it is about being equitable. ILF isn’t a huge amount of money that they are receiving. Lots of issues that they need that will be addressed.
Page 9
Public online consultations feedback Proposed change Feedback Add in different thresholds based on age 34 responses from the survey stated they disagreed with implementing this change. Increase taper 31 responses from the survey stated they disagreed with implementing this change Charge ILF service users 9 responses from the survey stated they disagreed with implementing this change Removal of a maximum charge. This would mean that those who are able to pay would pay full cost recovery of the services they receive. 28 responses from the survey stated they disagreed with implementing this change 1. Should ILF service users be charged? Respondents were asked to explain their response. The following list shows the responses provided. Please note, not all respondents provided feedback. Do you agree that ILF service users should contribute towards chargeable services so that they pay the same as non-ILF service users? Please explain your response to Yes That seems fair Yes Charges should be fair to ILF and non ILF service users Yes Equality Yes Isn't that part of what ILF is paid out for? No They are already paying for services through ilf if the council filled all the needs they have no one would need ILF. Yes Just think it’s the right thing to do Yes The costs should be equal, regardless of the funding source. Yes Yes if the HSCP is double funding for care
Page 10
No The ILF is already assessed on needs which are different (higher) than those not receiving the ILF. By introducing a new charge there is no benefit from the ILF to the person who needs it. Just moving money from one fund into your fund which will put the person getting ILF into a more challenging position. Yes To make it fairer Yes So all service users pay equal amount No ILF is funded for people who have high support needs. They require at best 24 hr care. Their needs are simply different. Those that do not get ILF do not meet the criteria due to their specific needs which are different. What is being proposed will simply lead to services no longer being appropriate and rejected, thus loss of contracts as those on ILF will not afford the additional cost, means tested if not. Loss of staff and a serious concern for loss of charity sector who are non-profit but provide the lowest charge services and make no profit to secure jobs with highly skilled and registered staff who are paid poorly. With the introduction of the new taxation system introduced by the current Labour Party, with this crass solution to address poor budget management not only will be detrimental to the people who need their hours, but a massive loss to charities who are the step in specialist services which the local authority who are already falling - most resent grading from Care Inspectorate re WDC home care poor grading at level 3 across all outcomes. Yes Seems fair No Maureen should pay the same as Mark but at the lower level.
Page 11
No Independent living fund is used for a specific group of people with specific needs who qualify for SDS and require a PA to assist them Yes Not fair for both having same amount of benefits but someone getting charged more No It would’ve been helpful here if there was a don’t know option. This is quite a complicated scenario to unpick. I’m not sure you can make the comparison between the two people without detailing the care Mark receives and if that exact amount and type of care could be provided to Maureen through the HSPC and how that would be charged. Maureen may well not be entitled to ILF. It makes sense that the charges should be equitable but Mark pays a large contribution to ILF without me knowing the details of his support. No the independent living fund is already supporting services and other costs that are needed and not provided by HSCP Yes To make everything equal and comparable Yes It's levelling up. Everyone should be paying the same fees. Yes Small number more equitable Yes It’s fair and equal to all. Yes This makes it a more equitable service Yes It is completely fair that the client pays the same as everyone else especially considering how much he is funded per annum. Yes I feel this should not be an exemption Yes it makes it fair and equitable Yes ILF PAYOUTS ARE WELL FUNDED. Yes I think the charging should be equal across the board. Yes I believe the charging policy should be calculated fairly and equally amongst those receiving care. Given the current social care crisis and challenges in funding those in receipt of ILF should be contributing to charges in the same way those who receive care but not ILF do dependent on financial assessment outcome. Yes This would make it fair Yes There is an inequality built into the system that should be changed.
Page 12
Yes If it doesn't cost them anymore and they receive the same services as those already paying it they should pay the same rate. Yes The fund is paid to service users to pay for support to live independently and therefore should be used to so. No In my opinion, it is the eligibility of ILF which should be reviewed to include those not currently in receipt of this funding. Yes should pay for a service that WDC provide Yes I believe that in terms of clients, all money should be looked at on separate cases and be charged/given money accordingly, rather than blanket polices/payments. IF an individual requires more money that should be represented. Yes this would provide equality and parity in charging Yes both have a similar income but one is being treated unfairly and should be charged the same for the same service Yes I feel that Mark is already receiving some funding towards his care package and should pay the difference towards his care. Why Maureen should be punished financially due to the current approach. It feels like a gain, gain situation for Mark and a lose, lose situation for Maureen. Therefore I feel those receiving funding from ILF should pay the difference and thus promoting more equality within the financial aspect of those requiring care services. Yes It’s fair to everyone Yes It seems unfair for both service users to receive same care but not pay the same contribution so leaves one party financially better off.
Page 13
2. Do you agree that there should be a limit in place based on age? Respondents were asked to explain their response. The following list shows the responses provided. Please note, not all respondents provided feedback. Do you agree that there should be a limit in place based on age? Please explain your response Yes We should be moving to a society where everyone regardless of impairment can find a way to contribute and be valued. 60 years as an adult of not contributing means that the others have to contribute more, this is unsustainable. No I believe charges should depend on overall needs (personal and non-personal) and ability to pay. No Discrimination No I didn't know it was what you earn that would depend what u had to pay No Should be based on health and needs, not money No Each service user has different needs No Age is just a number No It should be based on your level of need and total income, regardless of age. No Care needs are individual and if you need care, it should be provided No How anyone can consider that the weekly income suggested as a threshold before payment is adequate to live a reasonable life is beyond me. You are simply putting more people who are vulnerable into a more vulnerable financial position, or driving them out of the service - which could be more dangerous to the individual. Yes To make it fairer No Ageist No Another cost cutting situation due to poor management. Get rid of agency. There is one solution. Lower management wages as they are failing consistently i.e. care inspectorate grading 2024 WDC home care. Grade 3 Yes Seems fair
Page 14
No You are asking people to pay significantly more money than they do, this is going to cause serious hardship No Payments to younger people from DWP are less than payments made to pensioners. The disparency in their income evidences inequality with in charging based solely on age and is age discrimination No it should be a set rate, it is not Laura's fault she is younger No This proposed changes clearly discriminates against younger people by lowering the threshold for those under pensionable age. No the level of care, support needed and received by individuals is not dependent upon their age so age should not be a determining factor Yes Equality and fairness No This is ageist and also penalises people who are in relationships. This should be based on the individual person’s income alone. And should not be determined on their age either. Yes More equitable No Ageism? No Older people have the same access to disability benefits as younger people, same argument as free personal care for all Yes it is only fair that clients contribute to their care costs IMO No No I think it should be equitable across services that if charges are in place there should not an exemption for age. This would mean though that annual financial assessments would need to be completed to ensure any changes to income are captured and appropriate charging is in place. No ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY. No I am unsure and do not have adequate knowledge to agree or disagree No I believe the limit should be based on assessed need and not age Yes This needs to be factored into the budget No I fail to see the link between need and age.
Page 15
No I think it should be based solely on income as you can be older but not better off than someone who is younger. What income would you class and would you take expenditures into account? No Limits should only be based on income, it does not cost less to live when you are below pensionable age and outgoings are usually higher. This also hasn't clarified whether they have dependents. No In my opinion, people should not be charged based on age. It's based on presumption as to what people do at different stages in life. No only a limit based on income No Age shouldn't be a factor, what needs and requirements are should be more important. Some people in their late 80s may be better off than those in their 20s. Yes again makes system more equal to all No Equality and not being disadvantaged by your age No I believe you should not be discriminated due to your age especially without taking the care packages into consideration. No It shouldn’t matter what age you are No A need for care can happen at any age. Why should your age determine how much contribution to pay for care? The answer is it should not. Contribution to non -personal care costs should be based on a person's financial circumstances and ability to pay.
Page 16
3. Do you agree there should be a decrease in the % discount? Respondents were asked to explain their response. The following list shows the responses provided. Please note, not all respondents provided feedback. Do you agree there should be a decrease in the % discount? Please explain your response Yes The current amounts are not sustainable. No Financial climate No Cost of living is already too high and hitting the poor and disabled exponentially. You will be making people too poor for heating and eating and it is already the most desperately in need of help. Yes Each service user has different needs Yes Everyone should pay a certain percentage of income Yes The total cap provides a fair limit. No Why are we making the most vulnerable poorer. No This will reduce the amount people can use to live a reasonable life. Putting people into a financial situating where they have no or very little independence on what they can spend on will simply move one problem to another service area, mental health, and physical health and put extra burden on families. Yes To ale it fairer No It's unfair to expect vulnerable people to cover these extortionate costs No Poor decision when people currently struggling with cost of living and increase cost of fuel bills. No Keep current arrangements No These are people without a means of improving their financial circumstances and you just want to grab more off them. These are huge increases.
Page 17
No Disabled people are limited and disadvantaged in comparison to able bodied people regarding increasing their income. They are sitting ducks so to speak and should not be used to balance the councils books. Other means of savings should be looked at No people are struggling and finding it hard to be able to pay for services that they need No It’s basically an increased charge for individuals. No as stated previously persons in receipt of income for help with care and additional costs to their living expenses due to support needed already spend their income on supporting their needs and should not be charged extra or penalized financially for having additional needs No Cost of living increases, food prices and heating etc will make it harder to pay any increase No There should not be a discount change in circumstances by a whopping 25% just because the council don't know how to budget correctly whilst paying the big wigs at the council 6 figure salaries and allowing councillors to have expense accounts so they don't need to pay for their lunches. Yes I agree but not to the amount proposed. Too harsh on people. No this discourages people to be self sufficient No It is leaving the client with very little money which is probably already used towards something else: food, gas, electricity etc No Given the current cost of living crisis. I feel reducing the discount amount could result in individuals not being able to afford the support they need. Which in turn would result in crisis situations which the authority would then need to manage. No BENEFITS ARE LOW ENOUGH WITHOUT TAKING MORE MONEY OFF PEOPLE. No I do not believe this would be fair due to the increased cost of living and additional challenges people with disabilities face in daily living costs, transport etc. Yes The council is struggling and cuts need to be met
Page 18
No It appears that the poorest in society are being targeted. No What is the income based on? What expenditures are taken into account? That £23 a week extra is a lot for people to start paying if they are already budgeting week to week and having to pay their housing, bills etc on top of this. No There is not enough evidence in the above in respect of the income received. For example if George is in receipt of Universal Credit, a large amount of this would be awarded for his rent and council tax which would leave very limited income for other expenses. No I don't agree that giving people less is going to help them in life. Yes agree that HSCP needs to raise more money for the services they provide No I believe again that this should be determined on a case by case scenario. I have no idea of George's disabilities, living circumstances etc, so why should I say that george should pay more or less. Blankets changes can hurt people. Yes The discount is exactly that, a discount, which is amendable. To maintain services appropriate charges need to be made. No Other people who are just below the cap will not have to pay Yes I feel that as long as individuals have enough money to live on and pay bills, care and experience a fulfilled life then this should apply in order to bring in equality and recoup funds. Yes More packages could be provided if the percentage was decreased No I don't agree with proposed changed from 50% to 25%. Maybe a 35% or 40% discount is a little fairer. Lots people needing care and paying a contribution are in receipt of benefit income only. By taking more of their benefit income to pay for care will therefore reduce any enhanced payment a person receives for having a disability.
Page 19
4. Do you agree that if a service user is able to pay, they should pay the full cost of the service? Respondents were asked to explain their response. The following list shows the responses provided. Please note, not all respondents provided feedback. Do you agree that if a service user is able to pay, they should pay the full cost of the service? Please explain your response to No Some cost should be met if people have paid into the system for a lifetime. It is not right or fair if the same people that paid in receive nothing. Yes I agree on charges based on weekly income but do not agree that individual savings should be included in financial assessments other than for long term care services. No Services should cost the same No I don't think we should have to pay anything No This is not defined enough. There would need to be clearly defined thresholds for "surplus" income and definitions of what constitutes "surplus" and safeguards against Councils being able to raise that. No Every service user has different needs and shouldn't be penalised because they need more help Yes If they can easily afford then yes. No Why should people be penalised for earning a good income or having save for retirement? There should be a cap or contribution that is fair to all. No Some people will stop a service because they will worry about paying their bills. No These same people have contributed in the same way as everyone else why should they then be charged " again" for the services ( getting exactly the same service) simply because they have managed to be a bit more successful on income that others. This is simply a way to drive people out of the service a tax on doing well!
Page 20
Yes To make it fairer No Again taking money from the most vulnerable. No Again this only supports a gain for WDC. Re budget your management and agency over used. No Keep as is No Everyone should pay the same for the same level of care. No Home care is costed at one visit equal to 1 hour. The service user seldom received 1 hour support. Carers tend to several service users during this same hour. Each service user paying the aforementioned £25. No why are people who have been saving all their lives be then liable when no one else is No Again, a don’t know option would be helpful here. There is no indication here of what the HSPC deems what a significant amount of income over the weekly threshold would be. It would be helpful here to be more specific and make clear what the proposed cap would be.
Page 21
No in this calculation are you taking the equity that could be released from people’s homes as available income? I do not agree with this at all. Many people are in a situation needing care with savings they need for retirement age and to pay for care homes when they are older. I do not agree with removal of maximum charge for mean tested services No Although everyone has different income levels, their basic costs could differ depending on their level of need which needs to be taken into account No May put people off getting support No I believe they should contribute more but not all of the charges. Yes If people have sufficient funds they should pay for themselves until their funds dwindle to a certain amount, then there should a charge on a sliding scale Yes If the client has the funds like ILF etc which is to be used towards their care then yes of course they should pay the full amount No Again this could lead to individuals not being able to afford the support they actually need. Which would put more pressure on the council to provide emergency crisis services. Yes that what part of their benefits are for No "ABLE TO PAY"?..... HOW IS IT WORKED OUT.?NO.... Yes I feel that those with excess money should be paying for their services. More often individuals will accumulate far to much money from benefits that could pay for this support. While others who may not have as much money would be unable to self fund and currently get less support than those who can afford to pay for it. I feel that this would free up funds for those who really need the support and allow those who have excess income to use their money towards their care.
Page 22
Yes This would release funding for individuals transitioning into adult services. This would require regular review and for the discount to be reinstated should circumstances change Yes every other member of the community needs to pay for services if they can afford it, so it should not be discriminated against No Again, the poorest in society are being targeted. Yes I think it would reduce the number of people taking advantage and using services/support they don't necessarily need just because they can. They would then prioritise their support and free up staff/services to support others. Yes I have witnessed people who uptake on maximum packages as there is a cap and therefore they use services to the maximum, if there was no cap on charges it would encourage people to only use what they need and therefore reduce the burden on services. Yes This would be a good way to offset those who cannot pay. Yes need to pay for a service if they are allocated funds for support No Perhaps a higher percentage, but being just over the limit shouldn't require people to pay a huge sum Yes Services require to be paid for to be sustainable. No Service users will not be able to pay and will be left unsupported due to financial constraints.
Page 23
No I don't feel that just because you have the means to pay that you should be expected to pay the full amount at any time. The individual may have worked all their days and they have to pay more because of that compared to someone who has received benefits throughout their lives. People are then penalised for possibly contributing to society financially. I feel that the jump from £86.20 a week to £250 a week is a huge rise and should not even be considered. Yes, increase the contribution but not to the full amount. Surely we have some responsibility to look after those who require care services. However I do appreciate that everyone's circumstances are different and require to be taken into consideration. No They shouldn’t be penalised. They have the right to receive a service, regardless of their income. Yes I believe this would be similar to how residential care charges are calculated whereby you pay based on your financial ability to pay.