How is this possibly right?
Discussion
Pothole said:
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.
I'm going to sound callous now, but I'm trying to be dispassionate and objective. I've not heard of such a thing previously.
Although handled by trustees, I'd have expected any award to be absolute.
Why would you think that? The money was paid for her to look after the child, the child is now past looking after so she no longer 'needs' the money for that purpose. Perhaps another mother does.
It is the practicalities - as I mentioned earlier, it would in that circumstance make more sense, at least to me, for the payments to be periodic.
Making the award and taking a portion back on the death of the grantee seems I'll advised.
Justayellowbadge said:
Pothole said:
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.
I'm going to sound callous now, but I'm trying to be dispassionate and objective. I've not heard of such a thing previously.
Although handled by trustees, I'd have expected any award to be absolute.
Why would you think that? The money was paid for her to look after the child, the child is now past looking after so she no longer 'needs' the money for that purpose. Perhaps another mother does.
It is the practicalities - as I mentioned earlier, it would in that circumstance make more sense, at least to me, for the payments to be periodic.
Making the award and taking a portion back on the death of the grantee seems I'll advised.
Not sure I can get too excited about it, though. I can't see that a house that size was either necessary or desirable taken purely in terms of looking after the child.
It is right because this was not a compensation payment for as mediacl error casuing her son's disability, but an error in diagnosing that disability so she didn't have an abortion.
There is not some limitless pot of public money, the money was for the care of her son, and he has now died.
There is not some limitless pot of public money, the money was for the care of her son, and he has now died.
I'd suggest it was likely that she took the long term view of it being a family home and be large enough to cater for further children and a husband/partner.
I think she should repay the money, but she shouldn't have been given such a large (child care till 10 years old) sum in the first place.
I think she should repay the money, but she shouldn't have been given such a large (child care till 10 years old) sum in the first place.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
Depends, if the £450K house meant that all the care was made easier becuse there was space and equipment to assist with all this and also provide some comfort for the family who are now carers as well as parents and possibly have a hell of a lot less flexibility than they had to go and do stuff.saying the money comes out of the care budget is somewhat untrue, it comes out of a budget that has already been set aside to cover any claims, if there are no claims or it isn't used up it doesn't go back to the care budget.
Engineer1 said:
Depends, if the £450K house meant that all the care was made easier becuse there was space and equipment to assist with all this and also provide some comfort for the family who are now carers as well as parents and possibly have a hell of a lot less flexibility than they had to go and do stuff.
saying the money comes out of the care budget is somewhat untrue, it comes out of a budget that has already been set aside to cover any claims, if there are no claims or it isn't used up it doesn't go back to the care budget.
Whilst it'll sound sanctimonious I have to say my first reaction on reading the article was "She's spunked half a million quid on a big house".saying the money comes out of the care budget is somewhat untrue, it comes out of a budget that has already been set aside to cover any claims, if there are no claims or it isn't used up it doesn't go back to the care budget.
That's the thing though if I say that people take it that I'm suggesting she's a bad mother etc. when I'm not and I have nothing but sympathy for anyone in that situation, but I am questioning whether it's the most sensible use of the money in the circumstances - to look at it another way if there was a Bentley parked on the drive people would people accept the "Well he needed a decent car" point of view?
I'm actually more surprised that in such a situation you're given a cheque for the full amount - I'd assumed it would be paid annually or some other form of drip-feeding.
RYH64E said:
I'd make it a condition of treatment by the NHS that you waive rights to compensation if things go wrong, if that's not acceptable then pay and go private or take out your own insurance.
No, not a good idea! Remove the responsibility and the NHS would be like some third world country! We PAY for the NHS, it is not some freebie tossed in by the government.sugerbear said:
Not too shabby is it!London424 said:
sugerbear said:
Not too shabby is it!Anyway, I dont mind how the said parent used the money after all it was for the care of the child and everyone needs a place to live. U
nfortunately it really isn't the NHS's place to be subsidising homes for the able bodied , however unfortunate the situation they ended up in.
Justayellowbadge said:
Pothole said:
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.
I'm going to sound callous now, but I'm trying to be dispassionate and objective. I've not heard of such a thing previously.
Although handled by trustees, I'd have expected any award to be absolute.
Why would you think that? The money was paid for her to look after the child, the child is now past looking after so she no longer 'needs' the money for that purpose. Perhaps another mother does.
It is the practicalities - as I mentioned earlier, it would in that circumstance make more sense, at least to me, for the payments to be periodic.
Making the award and taking a portion back on the death of the grantee seems I'll advised.
MarshPhantom said:
The payment may officially have been made to help with the child's care, but really it's compensation for a big mistake made by the NHS.
This is the problem with certain things now. There never used to be a test for this years ago and yet now there is people want payments for genetic defects if it is not spotted. This woman appears to either not have been tested or a mistake made, it wasn't a huge mistake but the consequences of this mistake was large.My uncle was born like this in the 50s, there was no compansation or special help the family just got on with it until he died when he was 14 years old my gran cared for him in a two up two down coal hose with an outside toilet and a tin bath.
Many of those who were sympathetic to this woman yesterday were not when I showed them the pictures of the house she wants to stay in.
sugerbear said:
London424 said:
sugerbear said:
Not too shabby is it!
MrBrightSi said:
Shouldn't of made the news. This should be the standard way things go.
Here's money for care. I see the care is not needed anymore, please pay back the difference.
It's obvious she could of been a little bit less OTT with the cash.
I know there are those that disagree with so-called grammar nazis, but, genuinely, writing 'should of' or 'could of' completely undermines what you are saying. Here's money for care. I see the care is not needed anymore, please pay back the difference.
It's obvious she could of been a little bit less OTT with the cash.
It's like meeting someone who has a valid point, but has written it across their car bonnet in their own s
t. It detracts. spaximus said:
MarshPhantom said:
The payment may officially have been made to help with the child's care, but really it's compensation for a big mistake made by the NHS.
This is the problem with certain things now. There never used to be a test for this years ago and yet now there is people want payments for genetic defects if it is not spotted. This woman appears to either not have been tested or a mistake made, it wasn't a huge mistake but the consequences of this mistake was large.My uncle was born like this in the 50s, there was no compansation or special help the family just got on with it until he died when he was 14 years old my gran cared for him in a two up two down coal hose with an outside toilet and a tin bath.
Many of those who were sympathetic to this woman yesterday were not when I showed them the pictures of the house she wants to stay in.
i have every sympathy for the lady but disagree with how she and the other trustees chose to spend his money in the first place when he still alive.......but to now go to the press???
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff