It is interesting that we have to foot the bill because Sovereign find that one of their old folks homes is uneconomical. Why don't they have to find alternative places for the displaced folk - after all they own/run most of the places they will be relocated to. And what is going to happen to the place that is closed? I suspect that it won't be handed back to the Council (assuming it was an ex-council home like most of Sovereign's property).
If Sovereign are acting in a commercial way, should their charitable status be removed?
Sovereign Group is not a charity. Part of the group though, 'Sovereign Housing Association' is a charity. But that is the only part that is. Trafalgar Court (the scheme that has so vexed WBC and members of this forum), was the only Sovereign scheme that had full time clinical and medical care. The only one that has / had full time live in nursing staff. As such it did not come under the normal 'Sovereign housing' or 'supported housing' banners. Just to repeat the point, it was the only one Sovereign had of it's kind. The residents that have had to be moved have indeed all gone to other schemes. But not Sovereign ones. (see repeated point above) The nursing / care homes that the residents have gone to have realised that WBC needed to get these people sorted quickly and were therefore pretty much over a barrel. It would, I'm sure come to no surprise to members of this forum to learn that prices at these care homes suddenly shot up. That is one of the reasons WBC have now got an increased bill for their care. Threep. |
Logged
Male
