Report Reference: SG /5. Strategy Group 19th February Charges for the Lifeline Callcare Service. Report by the Social Portfolio Holder

Transcription

1 Wards affected: General Strategy Group 19th February 2002 Charges for the Lifeline Callcare Service Report by the Social Portfolio Holder 1. Purpose of Report To review the charging policy in relation to the s Lifeline service. 2. Advice That it be RECOMMENDED That the proposals, set out in Paragraph 4 of the report, to increase with effect from the 1st April 2002 the charge for the Lifeline service to council tenants and to introduce an introductory charge to all new users be agreed. 3. Introduction At the Special meeting on 25 th January 2001, it was agreed that proposals to increase the charges for the Lifeline service should be deferred to enable further consideration by the Policy and Resources Committee. That Committee subsequently decided that the charges should remain unchanged. The charges to council tenants for the lifeline service were made by way of rent points and the rent point system is now being replaced following the introduction of rent convergence and rents based, in part, on property valuations and other local factors. The must therefore agree a separate charge for the lifeline service. 4. Information Costs of the Service Costs include: - Lifeline Units 178(+VAT) Annual maintenance charges of 12 per unit (after the first 12 months) Connection charge to the rthampton Borough Callcare service of.489 per unit and 3 for each door entry system and door alarm. As part of the drive to reduce costs negotiations took place with rthampton Borough and it was agreed that the maintenance charges would be reduced from 17.5% to 12.5%, which, allowing for an inflation increase of 1.5% gave an overall reduction in charges of 9,000 per annum.

2 Current charges tenants are currently charged by way of rent points. Each rent point is valued at pence and the charge for the service equals 10 rent points, i.e per week. The attached chart (Appendix A ) shows that charges to Daventry District tenants are low in comparison with those of other service providers. For example: - rthampton Borough range from 2.81+VAT for semi-sheltered accommodation to 6.80(+VAT) for sheltered and 7.65(+VAT) for very sheltered accommodation. Kettering charges 3.10 per week. South rthamptonshire charges 2.94 for a bungalow and 2.97 for a house. Rugby Borough 3 (+VAT) Following rent convergence, rents are moving, in part, towards a property valuation base and rent points no longer apply. Therefore, the must make a set charge for the service. As mentioned above, the current charge is 1.12 a week. If the were to increase the charge for the service to 2 a week this would reduce the differential between the social housing and private sector and would bring the charge up to a more realistic level. (NB: Clearly, regardless of rent convergence, this charge would have increased in any event in line with rents) Private sector tenants are currently charged 3 per week. It will be seen from the chart that the charges made by this to private sector tenants are broadly in line with the charges made by other authorities and it is therefore suggested that the charge to them should remain at the same level. In order to keep pace with inflation, it is suggested that, in future, the charges to council tenants should be increased annually in line with rent increases to achieve convergence with the private sector. Private sector rents should be increased on an annual basis in line with inflation. It is suggested that consideration should also be given to seeking, in future, a nonrefundable connection charge. This would be a one-off payment to cover the demonstration and the fitting of the equipment, which takes two visits. The net effect of this would be that the would still receive some income irrespective of whether the lifeline was removed after only one month. This policy would be similar to that adopted by the Age Concern Aid-Call service. It is also suggested that the service should be extended to include physically disabled persons of any age and also short term contracts for a minimum period of 3 months for persons of any age needing temporary support, for example, people who have just been discharged from hospital. The contract period could be extended if required The connection charges etc could still apply. This proposal would meet the Government's objectives in enabling people to be discharged from hospital earlier and so reduce 'bed-blocking'.

3 5. Financial/Personnel/Policy/Legal/Environmental/Best Value/IT Implications If the proposals set out above are implemented the would achieve an additional income of 40,000. There are no staffing implications arising from these proposals as any increased demand can be met within existing staff resources. The Lifeline/Mobile Warden service is in line with the s strategic objective to provide quality direct services to the community and to share money and services fairly throughout the District. In Best Value terms, the service provided by Daventry compares very favourably in terms of quality and cost with that provided by other councils/organisations. There are no IT implications. 6. Conclusions As part of the exercise to look at costs across the range of services funded from the Housing Revenue Account, it is appropriate to review the costs and charges of the Lifeline service. The increased charges suggested are considered to be relatively modest and are still lower than those charged by other s that provide the service. It should also be noted that, in value for money terms, the service provided by Daventry District is much more comprehensive than those in the comparator group lor Kevin Perry Social Portfolio Holder Background papers: ne Previous Minutes: Special meeting 25 th January 2001 Policy and Resources: Minute 8/01 8 th February 2001 Contact Officer: Judy Gregory Extension 530

4 Rugby p VAT 2 contacts inc weekly visit 1.76p no visit emergency support only As private sector ½ service 1.50p 4 contacts mobile visit Elderly & Physically Disabled Cherwell Contact Ros Salmon VAT As private sector Being Considered Oxford 25.37p door entry or fire alarm Anyone South rthants District p per month with visit inc VAT per month with no visit inc VAT 2.94p Bungalow 2.97p House Monthly or fortnigntly visit 4.62 per week sheltered housing rthants Borough Anyone 17.50p

5 Market Harborough Contact John Biaz Purchase own system VAT 2.50p + VAT rented 2.70p + VAT Monthly system check Own Own Domestic violence Lone worker CCTV ne Orbit 1.25p ne Own PNC3 rthants Borough Inside Borough 2.87 inc VAT Outside Borough 3.11p inc VAT Semi sheltered 2.81p inc VAT Sheltered 6.80p inc VAT, only in dire emergency Own Anyone 12.93p notice by end of month for maintenance contract Very sheltered 7.56p inc warden services

6 BPHA Purchase own system per week 2.00 with mobile 4.00 with mobile and weekly visit t purchased 2.00 per week 3.00 with mobile 6.00 with mobile and weekly visit different levels service of Own (CASS) Will take Tunstall PNC 40 per unit extra for door entry or fire Milton Keynes VAT Relatives contact only Mobiles called only in dire emergency As private costs Weekly visit, not on a regular basis only Galaxy Upgrade to Tunstall Vision 63p per unit, inc victim support And Physically Disabled

7 Mid Beds w Aragon Housing Assoc 2.48p + 50p Fall Detector 50p per visit As private costs Visit as charged emergency response rth Herts 39p week unit per per Kettering ne (Being considered) 3.10p includes visit Basingstoke Age Concern 3 options (see chart) Monitoring only emergency contacts As chart Own (see chart)

8 Daventry District VAT one visit fortnightly 10 rent points = 1.12 Fortnightly visit rthampton Borough 38p per week per unit Ehpa/jgregory/january/o table of las call care costs