Dandyman
In London village.
captainmorganrum said:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Care homes - this f***ing government...
- Thread starter Easy 10
- Start date
Gritt23
New member
Old people turfed out of homes they are happy in ...
Sex offenders permitted to work in our schools ...
Fee paying universities all round ....
Socialism of the New Millenium eh? Marvellous eh.
Sex offenders permitted to work in our schools ...
Fee paying universities all round ....
Socialism of the New Millenium eh? Marvellous eh.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
- Thread starter
- #23
The plot THICKENS. This was in todays Argus:
Two care homes have been accused of misleading residents over their reasons for closure.
Dresden House in Hove and Norman Latham House in Southwick told 79 pensioners they were being evicted because the homes could not afford to meet the standards demanded. But the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) last night told The Argus both homes met current standards and had permission to stay open.
On Monday, West Sussex Housing Society, which runs Norman Latham House, issued a statement saying: "Norman Latham House is unable to comply with some of the standards. Many residentsí rooms are below the minimum size laid down within the Care Standards Act." But the CSCI said: "Homes registered before the standards came into operation about four years ago are not required to increase the size of their rooms."
The commission said it had no problem with Norman Latham House and had given it a clean bill of health in an annual inspection report carried out in October 2005. On January 11, Helen Fairfax, chairman of Dresden Homes Trust, said in a statement announcing the closure of Dresden House: "The trustees decided it would be irresponsible to continue investing money into the fabric of the buildings when they would never be fit for purpose or comply with the care standards."
But the most recent inspection by the CSCI gave Dresden House a clean bill of health. The CSCI has confirmed it has never told the trust the home was failing. The CSCI said: "The commission has put no demands on Dresden House or Norman Latham House to make major structural improvements."
Hove MP Celia Barlow and Shoreham and East Worthing MP Tim Loughton, expressed surprise that standards were cited as reasons for closure. Mrs Barlow said: "One year ago trustees had assured residents the home was safe for another ten years. I would urge a moratorium for the trust to consider very carefully the basis and implications of its decision."
Dresden House, run by a charitable trust, is worth an estimated £7 million. Norman Latham House is valued at about £5 million and will both be sold off to developers. Tony Matthews, from Norman Latham House, said it could not comply with the Care Standards Act and denied any other motives were behind the closure.
Dresden Homes Trust was unavailable for comment.
As an interesting side note - a large allotment directly behind Norman Latham House has recently been sold for redevelopment. Something stinks here, and it ain't just the dirty linen.
Two care homes have been accused of misleading residents over their reasons for closure.
Dresden House in Hove and Norman Latham House in Southwick told 79 pensioners they were being evicted because the homes could not afford to meet the standards demanded. But the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) last night told The Argus both homes met current standards and had permission to stay open.
On Monday, West Sussex Housing Society, which runs Norman Latham House, issued a statement saying: "Norman Latham House is unable to comply with some of the standards. Many residentsí rooms are below the minimum size laid down within the Care Standards Act." But the CSCI said: "Homes registered before the standards came into operation about four years ago are not required to increase the size of their rooms."
The commission said it had no problem with Norman Latham House and had given it a clean bill of health in an annual inspection report carried out in October 2005. On January 11, Helen Fairfax, chairman of Dresden Homes Trust, said in a statement announcing the closure of Dresden House: "The trustees decided it would be irresponsible to continue investing money into the fabric of the buildings when they would never be fit for purpose or comply with the care standards."
But the most recent inspection by the CSCI gave Dresden House a clean bill of health. The CSCI has confirmed it has never told the trust the home was failing. The CSCI said: "The commission has put no demands on Dresden House or Norman Latham House to make major structural improvements."
Hove MP Celia Barlow and Shoreham and East Worthing MP Tim Loughton, expressed surprise that standards were cited as reasons for closure. Mrs Barlow said: "One year ago trustees had assured residents the home was safe for another ten years. I would urge a moratorium for the trust to consider very carefully the basis and implications of its decision."
Dresden House, run by a charitable trust, is worth an estimated £7 million. Norman Latham House is valued at about £5 million and will both be sold off to developers. Tony Matthews, from Norman Latham House, said it could not comply with the Care Standards Act and denied any other motives were behind the closure.
Dresden Homes Trust was unavailable for comment.
As an interesting side note - a large allotment directly behind Norman Latham House has recently been sold for redevelopment. Something stinks here, and it ain't just the dirty linen.
Last edited:
Theatre of Trees
Well-known member
Tories used to do this as well, I worked in Care Homes briefly in the early 1990s and remember when they moved a 99 year old blind bloke from a home recently closed for budgetry reasons in Newhaven to a new one which was predominantly for alzheimers, Parkinsons and other such cases. He survived two months as he went from a place where he knew everybody to one he didn't and was full of patients who would scream and shout at night. Not surprising he was frightened most of the time and just lost the will to live. Remember accompanying him in what was his last trip in an ambulance to the Royal Sussex. This was a bloke who had fought in and survived the Battle of the Somme.
dcseagull
New member
Theatre of Trees said:
What a sad story.
I used to work in the Sussex County ten years or eleven years ago. I primarily worked in the geriactic ward. The thing I remember most though is the amount of patients who talked endlessly about their kids and grandkids and how much they adored them. Funny thing was we never got to see them visiting. Guess they were just to busy.
Funnily enough, I remember Krispies working there as a nurse as well.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
So let's get this story right, shall we?
Easy 10's wife is losing her job and elderly residents are being thrown out of the Norman Latham care home in Southwick because the owners want to sell the place off to developers and are trying to blame the Labour government.
I agree with Simster - "disgraceful and totally indefensible behaviour".
I can't see why the government is getting the blame, though.
Easy 10's wife is losing her job and elderly residents are being thrown out of the Norman Latham care home in Southwick because the owners want to sell the place off to developers and are trying to blame the Labour government.
I agree with Simster - "disgraceful and totally indefensible behaviour".
I can't see why the government is getting the blame, though.
I blame Sven
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
- Thread starter
- #28
The government brought in the Care Standards Act in 2001. As Norman Latham House is apparently unable to comply with the minimum requirement for room sizes (10m sq), its owners stated that the home would have to close. Hence my (initial) blame of the government for imposing such draconian and unworkable laws.Lord Bracknell said:
HOWEVER
Going from todays report in the Argus, the Commision for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) have said that Norman Latham House DOES have a clean bill of health (it had its annual inspection last October). They say theres no reason for it to close, and they had made no demands for structural improvements. This is now being denied by Tony Matthews (who runs the home), and he is apparently demanding the Argus retract todays story and print an apology.
We just don't know what thr FRIG is going on to be quite honest.
Last edited:
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The CSCI Inspection Report on Norman Latham House (October 2005) is available online:-
http://62.73.173.233/CSCI/CRH/82/DS0000024182.V258907.R01.S.pdf
http://62.73.173.233/CSCI/CRH/82/DS0000024182.V258907.R01.S.pdf
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
- Thread starter
- #30
Thanks very much for that Lord B.Lord Bracknell said:
I've just gone through the whole report. There is not ONE mention of there being a problem with the size of the rooms. In fact, the comments on the rooms were: "The inspector visited the communal areas and a large number of bedroooms. These areas were clean and pleasantly decorated, providing the residents with a homely envinronment in which to live".
There are recommendations for the laundrey area to be cleaner, a concern about wheelchairs being stored in corridors, and some of the administrative side of things needed improvement, but overall there are no major problems reported there whatsoever.
Will have to have a chat with the wife about this in the morning. Is there a straightforward explanation ? Or are we getting screwed over ? Hmmmmm.
Last edited:
Bluejuice
Lazy as a rug on Valium
Sounds like dirty tactics to me.
How many times have we heard a story about somewhere being sold off because the land could be more profitably used for something else?
It stinks, and if I were you Easy I'd throw some questions at your Mrs' boss. After all, if they're closing anyway, you've nothing to lose. But if this is all lies as reports would suggest then kicking up a fuss in front of those who are planning to (presumably) profit from this should help highlight the injustice.
I'm all too ready too blame the government for their many failings, but in ths instance it looks like they've been given an unfair press.
Give 'em hell, and I wish your wife and all the residents luck with the case that should be brought against the care trust agianst the proposed closure.
How many times have we heard a story about somewhere being sold off because the land could be more profitably used for something else?
It stinks, and if I were you Easy I'd throw some questions at your Mrs' boss. After all, if they're closing anyway, you've nothing to lose. But if this is all lies as reports would suggest then kicking up a fuss in front of those who are planning to (presumably) profit from this should help highlight the injustice.
I'm all too ready too blame the government for their many failings, but in ths instance it looks like they've been given an unfair press.
Give 'em hell, and I wish your wife and all the residents luck with the case that should be brought against the care trust agianst the proposed closure.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
This has hapened in Steyning. A care home closed - it is now blocks of (partially sold) flats.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
- Thread starter
- #34
Right, just banged this off to the newsdesk at the Argus.
Melanie,
Further to the story in The Argus yesterday regarding the impending closure of the Noman Latham care home, I've come across some evidence which completely contradicts the reasons given for the home being closed. According to your report on Monday, the West Sussex Housing Society issued a statement saying "Norman Latham House is unable to comply with some of the standards. Many residents rooms are below the minimum size laid down within the Care Standards Act." My wife, who works part time at Norman Latham House, received a letter on Monday from her employer, warning of her impending redundency, and stating that following an inspection last year in line with the Care Standards Act, they had been told that many of the rooms were below the minimum required standard set out in the Act of 2000, and as they could not afford to make structural improvements, the home would have to close. The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) denied that this was the case in yesterdays Argus report - but this statement was still disputed by Tony Matthews, the manager at Norman Latham House, who said that it was closing because it could NOT comply with the Care Standards Act.
Here is a link to the CSCI's Inspectors Report into Norman Latham House from 19th October 2005:
http://62.73.173.233/CSCI/CRH/82/DS0000024182.V258907.R01.S.pdf
There is NOTHING in that report suggesting a problem with the size of the rooms. The most relevent section is on page 15 (of 23) where 'Environment' is inspected, and the residents rooms were found to be "clean and pleasantly decorated, providing a homely environment in which to live". There is no mention of them being too small or non-compliant with the Care Standards Act. The report concludes with a section of Statutory Requirements, along with an action plan for required compliance by 28/11/05. Again, there is no mention of rooms being too small or requiring expansion. Therefore, I would be interested to see some documentation from the West Sussex Housing Society or Norman Latham House showing precisely WHEN the CSCI issued Norman Latham House with an ultimatum to increase the size of its rooms or face closure. My understanding is that although a regulation does exist for rooms to be of a minimum size of 10m squared, this rule does not apply to those nursing homes which were already operating prior to the Care Standards Act of 2000 (Norman Latham House has been a care home since 1960).
Interestingly, I understand a large allotment situated directly behind Norman Latham House has recently been sold off to property developers. With this in mind, I can't help but find myself suspicious of the genuine reasons for closing down Norman Lathom House. If the CSCI have already said they have not made any demands for room expansion, and their own report would seem to back this up, then I think the staff and in particular the elderly residents of Norman Lathom House deserve some answers as to who exactly has said that the home has to close.
I will be raising this with Tony Matthews and my local MP in due course if the answers are not forthcoming, but in the meantime, I thought your paper may be interested in following up the story too.
Regards,
Easy 10
Melanie,
Further to the story in The Argus yesterday regarding the impending closure of the Noman Latham care home, I've come across some evidence which completely contradicts the reasons given for the home being closed. According to your report on Monday, the West Sussex Housing Society issued a statement saying "Norman Latham House is unable to comply with some of the standards. Many residents rooms are below the minimum size laid down within the Care Standards Act." My wife, who works part time at Norman Latham House, received a letter on Monday from her employer, warning of her impending redundency, and stating that following an inspection last year in line with the Care Standards Act, they had been told that many of the rooms were below the minimum required standard set out in the Act of 2000, and as they could not afford to make structural improvements, the home would have to close. The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) denied that this was the case in yesterdays Argus report - but this statement was still disputed by Tony Matthews, the manager at Norman Latham House, who said that it was closing because it could NOT comply with the Care Standards Act.
Here is a link to the CSCI's Inspectors Report into Norman Latham House from 19th October 2005:
http://62.73.173.233/CSCI/CRH/82/DS0000024182.V258907.R01.S.pdf
There is NOTHING in that report suggesting a problem with the size of the rooms. The most relevent section is on page 15 (of 23) where 'Environment' is inspected, and the residents rooms were found to be "clean and pleasantly decorated, providing a homely environment in which to live". There is no mention of them being too small or non-compliant with the Care Standards Act. The report concludes with a section of Statutory Requirements, along with an action plan for required compliance by 28/11/05. Again, there is no mention of rooms being too small or requiring expansion. Therefore, I would be interested to see some documentation from the West Sussex Housing Society or Norman Latham House showing precisely WHEN the CSCI issued Norman Latham House with an ultimatum to increase the size of its rooms or face closure. My understanding is that although a regulation does exist for rooms to be of a minimum size of 10m squared, this rule does not apply to those nursing homes which were already operating prior to the Care Standards Act of 2000 (Norman Latham House has been a care home since 1960).
Interestingly, I understand a large allotment situated directly behind Norman Latham House has recently been sold off to property developers. With this in mind, I can't help but find myself suspicious of the genuine reasons for closing down Norman Lathom House. If the CSCI have already said they have not made any demands for room expansion, and their own report would seem to back this up, then I think the staff and in particular the elderly residents of Norman Lathom House deserve some answers as to who exactly has said that the home has to close.
I will be raising this with Tony Matthews and my local MP in due course if the answers are not forthcoming, but in the meantime, I thought your paper may be interested in following up the story too.
Regards,
Easy 10