How is this possibly right?
Discussion
I'm all for sensible management of NHS money but this seems ghoulish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-he...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-he...
Stuartggray said:
It does seem ghoulish, but have you seen the size of the house?
It's hardly Buckingham Palace.
If the NHS do want to go down this route a fairer way would be some sort of charging order on the property - so she doesn't have to sell it now but when she does they then get their money back.
Although, to be honest I can't see many taxpayers complaining if they just let things be and not pursue this lady for the money.
Unfortunate situation all round.
Victor McDade said:
It's hardly Buckingham Palace.
If the NHS do want to go down this route a fairer way would be some sort of charging order on the property - so she doesn't have to sell it now but when she does they then get their money back.
Although, to be honest I can't see many taxpayers complaining if they just let things be and not pursue this lady for the money.
Crap situation all round.
Its a pretty huge house for 2 peopleIf the NHS do want to go down this route a fairer way would be some sort of charging order on the property - so she doesn't have to sell it now but when she does they then get their money back.
Although, to be honest I can't see many taxpayers complaining if they just let things be and not pursue this lady for the money.
Crap situation all round.
Victor McDade said:
Stuartggray said:
It does seem ghoulish, but have you seen the size of the house?
It's hardly Buckingham Palace.Do you know how many people live in Buckingham Palace? Hundreds, I tell you.
Justayellowbadge said:
What surprises me is that the compensation can be conditional in this way.
I've not heard of such a thing previously.
Although handled by trustees, I'd have expected any award to be absolute.
On the emboldened part, and directed to the room and not you specifically, why should the totality of an award be an absolute payment? If an award is granted to cater for ongoing care if that care is unexpectedly no longer required I honestly don't see why that part of an award shouldn't be reclaimed. So strike me down. I've not heard of such a thing previously.
Although handled by trustees, I'd have expected any award to be absolute.
While I can understand why many would see this action as heartless I don't have an issue with the concept of reclaiming unrequired ongoing care payments.
scenario8 said:
On the emboldened part, and directed to the room and not you specifically, why should the totality of an award be an absolute payment? If an award is granted to cater for ongoing care if that care is unexpectedly no longer required I honestly don't see why that part of an award shouldn't be reclaimed. So strike me down.
While I can understand why many would see this action as heartless I don't have an issue with the concept of reclaiming unrequired ongoing care payments.
It's the reclaiming. While I can understand why many would see this action as heartless I don't have an issue with the concept of reclaiming unrequired ongoing care payments.
In a case like this, why not a lump sum for capital outlay, and periodic payments for ongoing care?
When you read the full details it is not a simple case. The gist of the case was because she was not tested correctly she did not have the opportunity to abort the child. It is not clear what she would have done, but one could guess, which I have no problem with if that would have been her choice.
Once it was clear there was a problem she was awarded an interim sum of money to provide care until he was ten, after which more money would have been provided. Unfortunately he died suddenly at the age of six. The money was for care, not compensation, to provide a big house and as the care is no longer needed it is right it should be reclaimed, in my opinion.
It is sad the child died but if she can no longer afford the house then that is a seperate matter to the reclaim of the money allocated for care.
On Ph people go on about benifts etc and yet here is a case that she knew might happen which she says she understood but still wants to hold on to the home her sons and her misfortune paid for. £330k can now be used for other needy people, how is this wrong?
Once it was clear there was a problem she was awarded an interim sum of money to provide care until he was ten, after which more money would have been provided. Unfortunately he died suddenly at the age of six. The money was for care, not compensation, to provide a big house and as the care is no longer needed it is right it should be reclaimed, in my opinion.
It is sad the child died but if she can no longer afford the house then that is a seperate matter to the reclaim of the money allocated for care.
On Ph people go on about benifts etc and yet here is a case that she knew might happen which she says she understood but still wants to hold on to the home her sons and her misfortune paid for. £330k can now be used for other needy people, how is this wrong?
Steameh said:
Victor McDade said:
It's hardly Buckingham Palace.
If the NHS do want to go down this route a fairer way would be some sort of charging order on the property - so she doesn't have to sell it now but when she does they then get their money back.
Although, to be honest I can't see many taxpayers complaining if they just let things be and not pursue this lady for the money.
Crap situation all round.
Its a pretty huge house for 2 peopleIf the NHS do want to go down this route a fairer way would be some sort of charging order on the property - so she doesn't have to sell it now but when she does they then get their money back.
Although, to be honest I can't see many taxpayers complaining if they just let things be and not pursue this lady for the money.
Crap situation all round.
I'm probably going to sound harsh here but the compensation was, presumably, to care for the child. Whilst anyone would agree that "care" includes providing a nice environment, it might appear that being given £700K to care for your child and then spending £450K of it on a house is a little odd.
thole?I'm afraid I agree that the money should go back...I've just watched our local Look East programme and I have come to the conclusion that she spunked the money on a great big house and now is in negative equity...
A smaller house would have ensured that she still had the money to repay this as she should have budgeted to ensure that she had the cash to continue the care...makes you wonder what she's been living on since she brought the house...
Not much sympathy here I'm afraid...
A smaller house would have ensured that she still had the money to repay this as she should have budgeted to ensure that she had the cash to continue the care...makes you wonder what she's been living on since she brought the house...
Not much sympathy here I'm afraid...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff