|
||
|
17th July 2019, 06:22 | #11 | |
This is my second home
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,428
Thanks: 3,123
Thanked 3,170 Times in 2,096 Posts
|
Quote:
Things are very different now but these rules haven’t really changed. The worst case I heard of was a Down’s syndrome chap who was managing to live on his own with the support of his parents. His Grandfather set up a Will Trust for him so that when the grandfather died - about £40k was placed in a Trust for this Down’s Syndrome chap. So it was in Trust, so it wasn’t now owned by him - it belonged to the Trust which was set up for his long term benefit and so should not be included in any calculation of Capital owned. But HCC did exactly that and this Down’s Syndrome chap lost all his benefits and ended up having to move back with his parents who had worked so hard to make their son as independent as possible. It all happened because he innocently said that his grandfather had left him £40k and HCC took the word of a Down’s Syndrome vulnerable person and did not do the proper due diligence checks. It was reversed but it took many months and stalling by HCC - the belief was that they realised they had made a huge mistake and self preservation took over rather than any inherent honesty whereby hands were held up and a “sorry we made a mistake” apology given. I suspect that under today’s rules a council who did this would be guilty of ignoring current “Safeguarding Rules” - something that could possibly apply in the OP case as the report says this lady has learning difficulties. Last edited by Darcydog; 17th July 2019 at 06:27.. |
|
|
|