Why direct payments for social care is nonsense in the UK.

[embleton]

The direct payments scheme in the UK is one that should allow those with child and adult social needs to choose their providers, employees and services for their social circumstances whilst living with physical and/or mental health disabilities or those caring for those with these issues during daily life. The funds are either partially or totally provided by the city councils locally within the UK, based on an assessment. And key elements of this scheme are choice within this process of dealing with their direct payments for assessed social needs.

Does it do this affectedly or is it just for reducing the direct cost and responsibilities to the city councils and burden of directly providing these facilities and services by city councils locally within the UK?

This article will detail the whole process and the running of such a scheme from the clientele prospective, and the fact it gives no choice whatsoever to choose providers or services directly, without incurring additional cost out of one's own personal funds, above the assessment of needs.

It is especially relevant to those living with mental health issues under aftercare provided free under a section 117 under the mental health act, and the pressure and responsibility those living with mental health needs will be under whilst dealing with these duties directly, through the experience whilst administrating the direct payments from my own perspective, which is a complex duty in all areas.

A key point addressing is that it provides little choice and only adds responsibility to the clientele, an area that those living with mental health issues do not respectfully deal with well.

Areas that do enhance those living with mental health issues are continuity, less stress and responsibility and for some areas of direct payments management; especially in the area of handling money for those living with bipolar affective disorder a risky area for criminal prosecution if not handled with care, a tricky process for those living with this condition is overspending, well documented in the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM) a psychiatric medical book, and should local area authorities put these individuals at risk of this fact during a manic episode?

Not only are those living with mental issues subjected to the possibility by the local authorities of dealing with the daily duties and overspending and criminal prosecution if they do so incorrectly, but dealing with such items as employer responsibilities, income tax for their employees and pension schemes that are in process for all employers currently, employee insurance, and daily accounting for fund allocation for ones assessed needs. If any of these areas are drastically mistakenly done these are areas for the criminal or civil prosecution of an individual dealing and living with mental health daily issues.

Even when an individual is under a civil mental health section these responsibilities do not subside, in my experience as I received correspondence during a section from the local authority that demanded action, surely this is complete nonsense and still a requirement was paying the taxman and my employees, and all other areas of responsibilities lay at my own feet and the likelihood of prosecution if incorrectly dealt with accordingly would cost me dearly even whilst under a mental health act civil section 2 for 28 days.

Even though having those around helps my mental and physical health considerably having the responsibilities for dealing with daily tasks for direct payments management clearly does not, even though such a process was as good as forced on me some time ago.

But it had already been laid at my feet and I built up a rapport with my service providers and employees, these individuals were taking out of a loop without consultation with myself by the local authority, and without concern for my personal health or wellbeing and requirement of daily structure.

An issue that I’ll write about further below about the structure and why choice is unbelievably undesirable by local authorities because of minor additional cost to them as a percentile in the equation, but the considerable cost of providing a service at a greater cost is fine for handling the direct payments scheme directly by the local authority by the strategic cooperate commissioning of Plymouth City Council, which is absolutely silly cost cutting wise and incurs far higher costs by handling the direct payments scheme by an alternative method something that isn’t free.

The city council wrote to me in May 2016 this communication was not received and even if it was, I was under a civil mental health section from 6th May 2016 until 5th June 2016, and didn’t receive another communication from Plymouth City Council until 28th June 2016 giving me little time to choose another payroll service at £8.34 instead of the sum of £14.99 that I am paying currently and allocated previously, I had to accept their allocated payroll service by 1st July and sign my rights away to another payroll service before 8th July 2016 or I’d incur a cost of £6.65 monthly without even my consent whatsoever.

Am I given a choice of service providers absolutely not, for I’m allocated a payroll service provider, an insurance employee provider, etc… Yes I do get one choice the individuals I use for my personal assistant and care every other matter are taken out my hands but I do get the tasks and legal responsibilities of handling everything else and that’s amazing for those living with mental health issues who are living with a lot of difficulties dealing with their daily lives already.