Location location location- A postcode lottery FINAL - report a.pdf

7/27/2019 Location location location- A postcode lottery FINAL - report a.pdf

1/21

Page | 1

Location, location, location: A

postcode lottery?

A report into the social care ordinary residence landscape

in England: October 2013


2/21

Page | 2

Contents

Page

3 Foreword

4 What is Ordinary Residence?

5 Executive summary

7 Key findings

8 Recommendations

9 Overview of findingsMethodology and responsesEngland overview by regionBackground from current literatureAnalysis

12 The human costs of ordinary residency disputes

14 Conclusions

15 Appendix A questions asked and response rates

16 About Linkage Community Trust

16 Further reading

17 References


3/21

Page | 3

Foreword

The issue of ordinary residence is a much-debated area in health and social care. Lack of

clear guidelines has left much of this matter subject to the interpretation of local authorities

and health organisations and practice varies significantly up and down the country.

Recently the Local Government Association published a report called Winterbourne View

joint improvement programme: Stocktake of progress report September 20131 which

revealed the challenges local government face with regard to ordinary residence. The report

highlighted the need for developments to be made locally to find a resolution to continuing

difficulties in relation to Ordinary Residence.

The Stocktake also revealed that local authorities want support with ordinary residence

matters:

Eighty-six specific requests for support are identifiedthe largest number of

requests (distinct from general support needs) are regarding Ordinary Residence andassociated financial risks

Despite the uncertainty around ordinary residence, the Stocktake is clear in its expectations

of local authorities, stating In the meantime, it is expected that authorities will work together

to resolve any outstanding uncertainties and that this should not be a reason for individuals

remaining stuck in inappropriate situations.

This report by Linkage Community Trust is the result of a Freedom of Information Act

request which was made in April 2013 to all 152 upper-tier local authorities, 1 Clinical

Commissioning Group and 1 Health and Social Care NHS Trust in England.

This report is the first survey of its type in the UK. It examines the current social care

ordinary residence landscape in England and looks into the flow of people between different

local authority areas.

We aimed to determine the financial implications of ordinary residence transfers for local

authorities and uncover the volume of people given the chance to exercise their right to

choose where they would like to live.

Linkage also heard from carers of service users who shed light on the human costs of

ordinary residency disputes. Their stories show the devastating consequences of the current

postcode lottery of care and support and demonstrate how local authority decisions canimpact so significantly on the lives of vulnerable adults with learning disabilities.

We did this because:

It is important that people can choose where they want to live;

It is important the people are able to exercise individual choice and control over what

type of accommodation they live in;

The right to exercise choice and control underpins the emerging cross-government

disability strategy Fulfilling Potential.

1Local Government Association (2013) Winterbourne View joint improvement programme: Stocktake of

progress report September 2013, England


4/21

Page | 4

In this report we call on the Government to make it easier for people to exercise their

right to live where they want to and to give clear and undisputable guidelines to local

authorities on who is responsible for funding, and a clear funding transfer process to

ensure that people are able to move seamlessly between local authority areas. This isin line with its welcome choice and personalisation agenda.

The Care Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, provides a crucial

opportunity to offer clarity around the matter of ordinary residency and put an end to

the plethora of disputes currently blighting many peoples experience of social care

and restricting their rights to choose where they want to live. This opportunity must

be taken and we must ensure that the Bill and accompanying regulations and

guidance clearly set out what is expected and are not left open to local interpretation.

Only then can we take steps forward to make ordinary residence disputes a thing of

the past.

Ges Roulstone

Chief Executive, Linkage Community Trust

What is Ordinary Residence?

Ordinary residence guidance is part of the 1948 National Assistance Act1. It was introducedto clarify the status of people placed in residential care outside their original area and aims toestablish which local authority has to fund their support2.

Under the National Assistance Act, if a council places someone in residential care out of

area, it remains financially responsible and that local authority continues to be deemed thepersons place of ordinary residence, for as long as the individual remains in residential care.

Disputes lasting many months arise when someone decides to move from residential care

into supported accommodation within the same local authority. The first authority argues that

it is no longer responsible for funding, but the second authority (where the person actually

lives) argues against funding someone not originally from the area2.

2VODG (2013) Ordinary Residence, extraordinary mess: a briefing from the Voluntary Organisations Disability

Group (VODG), England


5/21

Page | 5

Executive summary

Linkage Community Trust submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to all 152 upper-

tier local authorities, 1 Clinical Commissioning Group and 1 Health and Social Care NHS

Trust in England in order to assess the ordinary residence landscape in social care. With a

total of74.67% of authorities approached offering a full or partial response, we can beassured that this report provides a comprehensive overview of the situation in England.

There are several common scenarios where ordinary residency rules are particularly

disputed. These are:

When a person is placed in residential care or college out of county, the authority in

which they lived prior to that placement remains responsible for funding their care.

However, if the person moves out of residential care or college into their own

accommodation, the responsibility for funding transfers to the new local authority.

If the out of county residential care home a person was funded to reside in by theauthority prior to that placement de-registers, then the responsibility for funding the

subsequent care required, whether that is the sending or receiving authority, is

regularly contested.

In addition, problems of equivalence of care packages are closely linked to ordinary

residence issues:

When a person living with support in the community decides they want to move to

another area there are often arguments between the local authorities in the current

and new area over who will pay for the support if the move takes place. This often

results in people being left in limbo over whether they are able to exercise their rightto choose where they live for fear that support will not be available or will be reduced

or retracted once the move takes place.

Even when a person who is placed out of area has made the move from residential

care into supported living and the second authority agrees to pay, the persons care

package is often drastically reduced.

The Department of Health updated guidance on ordinary residence in April 20133 which

includes the following key principles:

Where two or more local authorities fall into dispute over a persons ordinary residence:

The key priority of local authorities should be the well-being of people who use services.

The provision of accommodation and/or services must not be delayed or otherwiseadversely affected because of uncertainty over which local authority is responsible.

The well-being of people is paramount in all cases of dispute.

3Department of Health (2013) Ordinary Residence: Guidance on the Identification of the Ordinary Residence of

People in Need of Community Care Services, England.


6/21

Page | 6

In particular, where a person is suffering from a terminal illness local authorities shouldensure the assessed care and support is provided speedily to the individual, pending theresolution of any dispute.

One local authority must accept responsibility on a without prejudice basis, in accordance

with the directions issued by the Secretary of State, for the provision of social care servicesuntil the dispute is resolved.


7/21

Page | 7

Key findings

Our findings showed that:

Funding responsibility isnt always transferred to a receiving local authority when a

person moves into their area in a community setting. This is contrary to Departmentof Health guidance which states that, unless the person is in a residential care

placement arranged by their original local authority, they have chosen to settle in the

new area and, as such, are ordinarily resident in that area. As a result, the new local

authority should have funding responsibility transferred to them.

More positively, local authorities have been acting upon Health Minister Norman

Lambs direction to move service users out of assessment and treatment centres and

into community settings by 1 June 2013. This is supported by the high numbers of

people who have moved from residential care into supported living and tenanted

accommodation across the country.

On average, 4 regions had more adults with learning disabilities moving into their

area under the ordinary residency criteria rather than leaving their area. Interestingly,

the same number of regions had more adults with learning disabilities leaving their

area under ordinary residency rules than moving into their area. 2 regions, the East

Midlands and West Midlands, had the same number of adults with learning

disabilities migrating into and out of their area on average.

It is interesting to note that the areas where people tend to move to under ordinary

residency rules are mainly coastal, rural areas and the areas where people tend to

leave under this criteria are, in the main, more urban and industrial locations.

A further interesting comparison to make is whether more authorities in the region, on

average, incurred higher costs or made more savings as a result of these migrations

under ordinary residency criteria. One would assume that high volumes of service

users migrating into a region would result in that area incurring higher costs and that

high numbers of service users migrating out of a region would generate more

savings, but this is not immediately apparent when comparing the responses for each

area. This could be due to the variations in levels of need and associated costs of

care packages and could also mask individual authorities in each region which vary

significantly in terms of their ordinary residency activity in comparison to theirregional counterparts.

It is recognised that some areas are more affected by ordinary residence transfers than

others. Some local authorities may be faced with a high level of people moving into their

area who require support which is not evenly balanced with an equivalent level of people

transferring out of their area. In these cases, if the receiving local authority becomes

responsible for funding all incoming residents, their budgets will be stretched

disproportionately compared to those authorities who send a lot of people out of area and

dont have a lot of people entering their area.

A breakdown of findings is available as a separate document to this report.
http://www.linkage.org.uk/foi-report/location-location-location-a-postcode-lottery-report-b.pdfhttp://www.linkage.org.uk/foi-report/location-location-location-a-postcode-lottery-report-b.pdfhttp://www.linkage.org.uk/foi-report/location-location-location-a-postcode-lottery-report-b.pdf


8/21

Page | 8

Recommendations

The Care Bill provides a crucial opportunity to clarify matters of ordinary residence and to

achieve more consistency and portability of care.

1. We support the move to implement a national eligibility threshold for social care toiron out regional discrepancies. Currently eligibility thresholds are set locally, with

many authorities tightening the criteria as a result of increasing budget pressures.

Current studies have shown that in 20134:- the vast majority, 130, had a threshold at substantial;- only three councils provided social care to people falling in to all the bands;-16 provided care to those with moderate needs and above; and-three councils only provided care for those with critical needs.

A national eligibility threshold would increase the portability of personal budgets

between local authority areas, with people being more reassured that they will able toaccess the support they are eligible for wherever they choose to live. We would

further suggest that funding should be attached to the person, rather than the place

to ensure true portability of care. There is still a risk however, of variations between

local authorities on what they include in a personal budget and how they operate,

which could affect the level of care a person receives.

It is imperative that this threshold is set at a level equivalent to the current

moderatelevel to ensure that vulnerable people with very real care needs dont slip

through the net. A level higher than this would only reinforce the problematic crisis-

driven approach we face at the moment, whereas a moderate level would promote a

more preventative style of care, which has been proven in several national reports to

be more cost-effective in the long run.

2. Regulations and accompanying guidance should also clearly set out what is

expected of local authorities to minimise variations in interpretation.

Clearer guidance on ordinary residence and funding responsibility should also be

produced in order to decrease perverse incentives for local authorities to move

people out of their area. It would close the

loopholes that local authorities sometimes try

to use to avoid assuming financial

responsibility. It would also promote personal

independence as service users are often

fearful of moving out of residential care into

more independent accommodation in case

the local authorities dispute, reduce, or end

the support they receive.

4https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-

help-under-new-plans
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-plans


9/21

Page | 9

Overview of findings

Methodology and responses

Linkage Community Trust submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to all 152 upper-

tier local authorities, 1 Clinical Commissioning Group and 1 Health and Social Care NHSTrust in England on 23 April 2013. 54 full responses and 61 partial responses were

received, which offered us an interesting insight into the current situation in England.

With a total of74.67% of authorities approached offering a full or partial response, we can be

assured that this report provides a comprehensive overview of the situation in England.

The questions asked centred on several key areas including incoming and outgoing

migrations, transfers of funding, impacts of reassessments and moves from residential care

into supported living or tenanted accommodation.

England Overview by Region

EastMidlands

EastofEngland

InnerLondonBoroughs

N

orthEast

No

rthWest

OuterLondonBoroughs

SouthEast

SouthWest

WestMidlands

Yorkshireand

Humber

MoreadultswithLDleaving

thearea

MoreadultswithLDmoving

intothearea

On average, did the region have more service users migrating into

their area than leaving the area?


10/21

Page | 10

This graph shows that:

On average, 4 regions had more adults with learning disabilities moving into their

area under the ordinary residency criteria rather than leaving their area. Interestingly,

the same number of regions had more adults with learning disabilities leaving their

area under ordinary residency rules than moving into their area.

2 regions, the East Midlands and West Midlands, had the same number of adults

with learning disabilities migrating into and out of their area on average.

Background from current literature

It is interesting to note that the areas where people tend to move to under ordinary residency

rules are mainly coastal, rural areas and the areas where people tend to leave under this

criteria are, in the main, more urban and industrial locations. This could be due to historical

practice in which there was pressure from local communities wanting learning-disabled

people to be placed away from population centres5

The report, Out-of-borough placements for people with learning disabilities , also argues that

The proportion of out-of-borough services purchased appears to be related to the volume of

local accommodation and the competence of local services in managing complex needs.

Political and economic factors influence both of these factors (Ryan, 1998). It is noticeable

that exporting boroughs tend to include city areas where house prices are high. This makes

the acquisition of special needs housing expensive and may lead to greater resistance from

local pressure groups and politicians who fear a negative effect on house prices. Such areas

may espouse the older belief that rural quietness far from the hurly-burly of modern urban

living is beneficial for disabled people. The importing boroughs are mainly the Shires, ruralareas where large properties are less expensive and there is less likelihood of local

opposition being organised. Many of the long-stay hospitals were situated away from

population centres, and skilled staff were concentrated in these areas. With the closure of

these hospitals, many staff left to run residential homes and services in the same area6.

The Centre for Social Justice also released a report called Turning the Tidewhich suggests

that seaside towns are becoming dumping grounds for vulnerable people.

The report suggests that The stagnation that a depleted economy and a low-skills base has

meant that the price of property has plummeted as demand has fallen. Buildings formerly

used as tourist accommodation and small businesses, such as bed and breakfasts, havebeen turned into extremely cheap housing. This has served to turn some seaside towns into

veritable dumping grounds for groups such as care leavers, people with substance abuse

problems, those with mental health issues and ex-offenders, for whom placing authorities

can easily find low-cost accommodation. As this happens, towns develop a high density of

need that places greater and greater strain on public services and risks increasing the

vulnerability of these already vulnerable groups7

It could be argued that this is also applicable to vulnerable adults with learning disabilities.

5

http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.full6http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.full

7http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdf
http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.full#ref-26http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.full#ref-26


11/21

Page | 11

Analysis

A further interesting comparison to make is whether more authorities in the region, on

average, incurred higher costs or made more savings as a result of these migrations under

ordinary residency criteria.

There doesnt appear to be any direct correlation between the numbers of adults with

learning disabilities migrating into or out of an area in comparison to the savings or costs

generated.

One would assume that high volumes of service users migrating into a region would result in

that area incurring higher costs and that high numbers of service users migrating out of a

region would generate more savings but this is not immediately apparent when comparingthe averages for each area. This could be due to the variations in needs and associated

costs of care packages and could also mask individual authorities in each region which vary

significantly in terms of their ordinary residency activity in comparison to their regional

counterparts.

EastMidlands

EastofEngland

InnerLondonBoroughs

NorthEast

NorthWest

OuterLondonBoroughs

SouthEast

SouthWest

WestMidlands

YorkshireandHumber

Incurredmorecosts

Mademoresavings

On average, did the region incur higher costs or make higher savings

from ordinary residence migrations?


12/21

Page | 12

The human costs of ordinary residency disputes

Negative impact on health condition

Sophies* ordinary residence dispute has been resolved and she is now under Local

Authority X as her funding authority. However, a combination of factors means that her care

package is significantly reduced:

Firstly, prior to the changes Sophie was receiving 3 days employment support, where she

was able to engage with others and keep active which benefitted her health. When Local

Authority X assessed her, they decided that this aspect of her care package was not needed

and she lost the funding for it.

This happened at the same time as Supporting People funds were being transferred to the

housing related support. As a result, Sophies hours were reduced for this also, as themaximum providers were able to claim for this was 8 hours per week. Prior to this Sophie

had been in receipt of 24 hours care per week.

Lastly, Local Authority X has assessed her as not requiring adult social care funding, which

meant that Sophies care package did not include on-going medication and health

requirements. We were able to request a re-assessment and received a further 7 hours per

week to cover these needs.

During this period of change Sophies diabetes got worse as we were supporting her for less

hours to supervise menu, food intake and shopping. Sophie cannot afford to purchase these

services from her own budget and with the reduced support she does struggle to becomeinvolved in appropriate and meaningful activities.

This example highlights the on-going struggle that people can be faced with through

ordinary residency disputes. Even though this local authority has agreed to pay, the problem

is that the new care package is insufficient.

*Name changed to protect identity


13/21

Page | 13

Negative impact on health and well-being

Gemma* was an ordinary residency case which Local Authority Y needed to assess and

take on the funding for.

After the assessment Local Authority Y decided that Gemma would not receive funding forher employment services and her support hours were reduced.

It took some time for Gemma to stop attending her employment services after many

attempts by staff to try and discuss and explain the outcome of the assessment. Gemma did

stop attending, but displayed distressing behaviours including pulling her hair out, not taking

care of herself, over sleeping, not engaging with support and her obsessive behaviours

increased. We sought medical advice about her behaviour / symptoms and response to no

longer attending employment services.

Gemmas GP wrote a letter to evidence that this was directly linked to her current situation

and lack of stimulation and activity. It gave Gemma little opportunity to engage with others asher support hours were reduced and staff were attending for less hours per week.

*Name changed to protect identity


14/21

Page | 14

Conclusions

1. Unless further clarity is provided on the circumstances when funding should or

should not follow the service user if they move out of county, we are facing a

postcode lottery of care and support for adults with learning disabilities.

Service users want to know that there will be consistency in their supportpackage once they move without having to worry about which local authority

will assume financial responsibility.

The findings clearly evidence that the rules around ordinary residence criteria

are being subject to local interpretation with no consistent approach being

taken nationally.

The Government need to ensure that scope for variation in understanding is

minimised. A clear and consistent process must be set out in legislation,

regulations and guidance to avoid the uncertainty and disputes many

vulnerable people find themselves embroiled in when moving to a new area or

moving to a different type of provision within that area.

2. An encouraging trend is that there appears to be a move towards transferring adults

with learning disabilities from residential care into supported living within the same

authority.

As we are uncertain as to how many learning disabled adults each local

authority supports, it is difficult to ascertain an accurate percentage of how

many service users are taking steps towards more independent living.

However, we are pleased that there seems to be gathering momentum in this

area, given the direction from Norman Lamb, Health Minister, to encourage

local authorities to move service users out of assessment and treatment

centres and into community settings by 1 June 2013.

3. In contrast, our findings indicate a low number of learning disabled adults who have

moved from residential care into supported living or tenanted accommodation, who

were previously funded by other local authorities. This poses a number of questions.

As it is not clear whether all of the adults with learning disabilities who made this

move were ordinarily resident in that area prior to the move, it is difficult to draw any

clear conclusions. One could make several assumptions including:

that people moved back to their original local authority once leaving a

residential care placement

that the funding origin of the service user is not clear in local authority records

that the majority of people who moved from residential care into supported

living or tenanted accommodation were ordinarily resident in that area

that the local authority which received the resident from out of county blocked

a move into supported living or tenanted accommodation in a dispute over

funding responsibility


15/21

Page | 15

Appendix A questions asked and response rates

This request comprised several key questions in terms of the ordinary residence activities of

local authorities. We asked:

1. How many learning disabled adults have become your authoritys responsibility under

ordinary residency rules in the last 2 years, by year? What has the total cost been to your

authority of that migration?

2. How many learning disabled adults have ceased to be your authoritys responsibility under

ordinary residency rules in the last 2 years, by year? What has the total saving been to your

authority of that migration?

3. How many other local authorities transferred funding responsibility under the ordinary

residence criteria to your authority in the last 2 years?

4. Of those, how many service users have been assessed as requiring reduced support in

comparison to their previous funding authoritys assessment?

5. How many people have moved from residential care into supported living or tenanted

accommodation within your area?

6. Of those, how many were previously funded by out of county local authorities?

We continued to accept responses until 11 July 2013 to ensure we gathered as full a picture

as possible.

By 11 July 2013 we had:

54 complete responses. This equates to 35.06%

61 partial responses This includes those unable to provide information to some

questions, those only able to provide estimates or those who had not responded to

requests for clarification to their responses by 11 July 2013. This equates to 39.61%.

35 refusals / unable to provide information (2 of these referred us to alternative

organisations to source this information, namely a Health and Social Care NHS Trust

and a Clinical Commissioning Group). This equates to 22.73%.

4 no returns. This equates to 2.6%.


16/21

Page | 16

About Linkage Community Trust

Linkage Community Trust is a national charity based in Lincolnshire, which delivers high-

quality specialist education, care and employment support services for learning disabled

people. Its 36-year history has established Linkage as a major provider in delivering flexible

services, which promote personal autonomy, independence and achievement. The aim is toensure that learning disabled people have the same rights and opportunities for inclusion,

fulfilment and feeling valued in society as everyone else.

Linkage College is the longest-established specialist further education college of its type in

the country. It accommodates both residential and day students at our Lincolnshire and

North East Lincolnshire campuses, aged primarily between 16 and 25. Linkage Care

Services offer residential care, supported accommodation and respite care facilities in more

than 70 properties across the county and beyond. Our Employment Services work in

partnership with more than 140 employers to support learning disabled people into

meaningful and sustainable work.

Linkage Community Trust is a registered charity no. 504913, Company Limited by

Guarantee No. 01240377.

Further reading

Local Government Association (2013) Winterbourne View joint improvement programme:

Stocktake of progress report September 2013, England

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/adult-social-care/-/journal_content/56/10180/3912043/ARTICLE

VODG (2007) No place like home, England

www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/VODG-no-place-like-home.pdf

VODG (2010) Not in my backyard, England

http://www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/pdfs/VODG_report_final.pdf

VODG (2013) Ordinary Residence, extraordinary mess: a briefing from the Voluntary

Organisations Disability Group (VODG), England

http://www.vodg.org.uk/cgblog/75/105/Stop-ordinary-residence-disputes-becoming-business-

as-usual.html
http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/adult-social-care/-/journal_content/56/10180/3912043/ARTICLEhttp://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/adult-social-care/-/journal_content/56/10180/3912043/ARTICLEhttp://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/adult-social-care/-/journal_content/56/10180/3912043/ARTICLEhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/VODG-no-place-like-home.pdfhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/VODG-no-place-like-home.pdfhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/pdfs/VODG_report_final.pdfhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/pdfs/VODG_report_final.pdfhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/cgblog/75/105/Stop-ordinary-residence-disputes-becoming-business-as-usual.htmlhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/cgblog/75/105/Stop-ordinary-residence-disputes-becoming-business-as-usual.htmlhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/cgblog/75/105/Stop-ordinary-residence-disputes-becoming-business-as-usual.htmlhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/cgblog/75/105/Stop-ordinary-residence-disputes-becoming-business-as-usual.htmlhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/cgblog/75/105/Stop-ordinary-residence-disputes-becoming-business-as-usual.htmlhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/pdfs/VODG_report_final.pdfhttp://www.vodg.org.uk/uploads/VODG-no-place-like-home.pdfhttp://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/adult-social-care/-/journal_content/56/10180/3912043/ARTICLEhttp://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/adult-social-care/-/journal_content/56/10180/3912043/ARTICLE


17/21

Page | 17

References

Local Government Association (2013) Winterbourne View joint improvement programme:

Stocktake of progress report September 2013, England

Department of Health (2013) Ordinary Residence: Guidance on the Identification of the

Ordinary Residence of People in Need of Community Care Services, England.

VODG (2013) Ordinary Residence, extraordinary mess: a briefing from the Voluntary

Organisations Disability Group (VODG), England

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-plans

http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.full

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-

Tide.pdf

Sources of information:

Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council

Barnet London Borough Council

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Bedford Council

Bexley Council

Birmingham City Council

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Blackpool CouncilBolton Council

Borough of Poole

Bournemouth Borough Council

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

Bradford Metropolitan District Council

Brent Council

Brighton and Hove City Council

Bristol City Council

Bromley London Borough Council

Buckinghamshire County CouncilBury Metropolitan Borough Council
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/Turning-the-Tide.pdfhttp://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/2/116.fullhttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-planshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-care-users-will-be-guaranteed-a-minimum-level-of-council-help-under-new-plans


18/21

Page | 18

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Cambridgeshire County Council

Camden Council

Central Bedfordshire Council

Cheshire East Council

Cheshire West and Chester Council

City of London Corporation

City of York Council

Cornwall Council

Council of the Isles of Scilly

Coventry City Council

Croydon Council

Cumbria County Council

Darlington Borough Council

Derby City Council

Derbyshire County Council

Devon County Council

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Dorset County Council

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

Durham County Council

Ealing Council

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

East Sussex County Council

Enfield CouncilEssex County Council

Gateshead Council

Gloucestershire County Council

Hackney London Borough Council

Halton Borough Council

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

Hampshire County Council

Haringey Council

Harrow Council

Hartlepool Borough CouncilHavering London Borough Council

Herefordshire Council

Hertfordshire County Council

Hillingdon London Borough Council

Hounslow London Borough Council

Hull City Council

Isle of Wight Council

Islington Council

Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough Council

Kent County CouncilKingston upon Thames Royal Borough Council


19/21

Page | 19

Kirklees Metropolitan Council

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Lambeth London Borough Council

Lancashire County Council

Leeds City Council

Leicester City Council

Leicestershire County Council

Lewisham London Borough Council

Lincolnshire County Council

Liverpool City Council

Luton Borough Council

Manchester City Council

Medway Council

Merton London Borough Council

Middlesbrough Council

Milton Keynes Council

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

Newham London Borough Council

Norfolk County Council

North East Lincolnshire Council

North East Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group

North Lincolnshire Council

North Somerset Council

North Tyneside Council

North Yorkshire County CouncilNorthamptonshire County Council

Northumberland Council

Nottingham City Council

Nottinghamshire County Council

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

Oxfordshire County Council

Peterborough City Council

Plymouth City Council

Portsmouth City Council

Reading Borough CouncilRedbridge London Borough Council

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Royal Borough of Greenwich

Rutland County Council

Salford City Council

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Sefton Metropolitan Borough CouncilSheffield City Council


20/21

Page | 20

Shropshire Council

Slough Borough Council

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

Somerset County Council

South Gloucestershire Council

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

Southampton City Council

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Southwark Council

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

Staffordshire County Council

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Suffolk County Council

Sunderland City Council

Surrey County Council

Sutton London Borough Council

Swindon Borough Council

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Telford and Wrekin Council

Thurrock Council

Torbay CouncilTorbay and South Devon Health and Social Care NHS Trust

Tower Hamlets Council

Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Waltham Forest London Borough Council

Wandsworth London Borough Council

Warrington Council

Warwickshire County Council

West Berkshire Council

West Sussex County Council

Westminster City Council

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

Wiltshire Council

Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Wokingham Borough Council

Wolverhampton City Council

Worcestershire County Council

Written by Rebecca Smith

Policy and Campaigns Officer, Linkage Community Trust


21/21

Page | 21

Documents

Location location location- A postcode lottery FINAL - report a.pdf