Council refuses to foot care bill for hospitalised pensioner (From Enfield Independent)

Council refuses to foot care bill for hospitalised pensioner

3:41pm Tuesday 9th February 2010

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)

AN elderly woman has been languishing in hospital for nearly five weeks after Enfield Council refused to pay her care bill to return home.

Lilian Uuk, 81, was medically fit for discharge from Chase Farm Hospital, in The Ridgeway, on January 18, but has been forced to remain in her ward for a further three weeks while her family and the council wrangle over costs.

Her son, Keith Fredericks, says the council agreed last year to foot the bill for her home care and gave him a £30,000 disabled facilities grant to convert his house to suit her needs - something that was completed at a total cost of £80,000 in December 2009.

However, the council is now only agreeing to provide funding for a residential care home or a cheaper homecare package.

Until January 17, Mrs Uuk's care was financed by Redbridge Council because she lived in Barking and her doctor was from Redbridge.

According to Mr Fredericks, Redbridge provided 56 hours of care a week, but Enfield Council has only agreed to fund 41.5 hours.

Meanwhile, the pensioner, who suffers from brain damage and is wheelchair-bound after losing her leg from gangrene, is becoming "increasingly distressed and anxious" in hospital.

She was admitted to hospital on January 5 after getting a pain in her foot.

Mr Fredericks, 55, from Heron Mead, said: "The hospital has been very good, but the council has been terrible. They are treating us with contempt.

"They just don't care. I haven't been able to get any answers from them. They say they will phone me back, then nobody phones me back.

"In the meantime my mother's health is deteriorating and she is getting more and more distressed. She keeps saying: 'I don't want to die in hospital.'

"Redbridge paid for 56 hours a week after sending an official assessor to see her, but Enfield haven't sent anyone."

He added: "Part of the condition of the £30,000 grant they gave us was that she would live at home for five years, so it doesn't make sense."

A council spokeswoman said the council's priority was that Mrs Uuk would be "cared for safely".

She added: "To this end we have undertaken an assessment of her needs and based on this we feel that she could be cared for appropriately in a residential care home.

"We do however also understand Mrs Uuk and her family need time to consider what alternatives arrangements they may wish to make, which the local authority will support financially at the same level as residential care where it is safe to do so for Mrs Uuk."

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)