Posted By John D Crosby Greg The way the Regulations and guidance are written for this are such that Social Services will have no control over who provides the service only that the money which must be paid into a separate account is used only for the purpose of paying the provider for the services that the Council has assessed as being required. The big problem that will arise is that the client may well become an employer unless they buy the service from an agency. Having discussed the matter with the local HSE Inspector she was not sure what the Council's responsibility, if any, would be. She was extremely concerned about how HSE would be able to enforce the law as the client would not be aware of their responsibilities as an employer. The regulations have been out for about 18 months or more and do not allow for Councils to have any say in the selection of providers in these cases. The aim of the regulations is to allow more independence to individuals and give them more control over their lives (at least that is what the official line is but I,m concerned that it could mean a reduction in the standard of care. The Regulations require clients to ask for the money rather than the Council insisting that they have the money. My Council have only two clients using this system and we are trying to watch what is happening but it is difficult. John C

Posted By sylvia Have been curious about the legal implications of this, but as I don't work in or with this area, just academic interest. I did a brief google search when it came up, and found quite a bit, the common view & guidance indicating quite clearly that this change in funding made the recipient a (new) employer. Many sites (Help the Aged? or similar) had guidance for these new employers (presumably available hard copy too!) on the various safety considerations, electrics, MH, etc. HOwever, I am intrigued about whether there is an argument that individual care so given could be interpreted as "employing a domestic servant in a private household". I have never seen a definition of 'domestic servant'. I find the HSE's lack of voice on this also interesting. I really can't envisage some old or disabled person being taken to court for a HASAWA breach when the care assistant breaks an ankle or ricks their back.

Posted By Jack Laurie, I think this is another case of people making statements outside their area of expertise (see Fire Wardens thread). The client would have to be negligent surely? Falling is not negligence (at least in your scenario it's not). In any event most household insurance should provide cover for liability to 3rd parties. I thought Social Services were trying to enable people to remain in their own home rather than residential accomodation, where possible (its cheaper for one thing). This kind of comment by Social Services departments is less than helpful. Jack