Kings reach care home.

[woolley]

22 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I'm not sure that it's the capital structure and debt that are directly the issue. It's more a question of when built the minimum areas per single or double room were x & y and there wasn't a requirement that they be ensuite. Door widths weren't required to be as wide, nor corridors etc. 

Now respecified, for comfort, dignity, accessibility and health and safety of residents and staff and, most importantly, evacuation in emergency, it simply isn't always physically possible to reconfigure. Of course, if you are over borrowed you may not have the cash in any event.

You said it in your last sentence, John. Any business that has borrowings out of all proportion to its operations is enfeebled to the extent that it can barely function day to day. It cannot react to change because the life blood is being sucked out of it to pay the bank. Zombie companies.

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/what-are-zombie-companies

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Bellefield said:

I always thought kings reach was sheltered accommodation, I hadn't realised there was also a care home attached.

Are the sheltered accommodation folk effected by this?

There are three components up there as far as I know, Magnus Court which are private, separate sheltered units, Cooyrt Balleigh which are RTC-owned sheltered units (Mr Singer is up there IIRC) and the King's Reach care home.

[hboy]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

There are three components up there as far as I know, Magnus Court which are private, separate sheltered units, Cooyrt Balleigh which are RTC-owned sheltered units (Mr Singer is up there IIRC) and the King's Reach care home.

Would it be too much to hope that Singer will be out on his ass now this has gone under? 

[Non-Believer]

15 minutes ago, hboy said:

Would it be too much to hope that Singer will be out on his ass now this has gone under? 

Wouldn't say it would happen, Cooyrt Balleigh is owned or administered by RTC, although it's essentially in the same area. Nothing to do with King's Reach's private ownership AFAIK.

[benl]

As a genuine question, how much damage was done by closing Glenside and how much pressure has this placed on the rest of the system? Whilst I suspect it wasn't up to modern standards it seemed to be closed without any sort of strategic plan and in the years since there has been a lot of talk about the lack of social care/residential facilities. If it was a cock-up how has the minister who recommended its closure escaped repercussions? 

I'm pretty naive when it comes to what is expected in terms of legal requirements, but surely something OK is better than an abject shortage? 

[notwell]

2 hours ago, benl said:

As a genuine question, how much damage was done by closing Glenside and how much pressure has this placed on the rest of the system? Whilst I suspect it wasn't up to modern standards it seemed to be closed without any sort of strategic plan and in the years since there has been a lot of talk about the lack of social care/residential facilities. If it was a cock-up how has the minister who recommended its closure escaped repercussions? 

I'm pretty naive when it comes to what is expected in terms of legal requirements, but surely something OK is better than an abject shortage? 

I agree but we live in a lawyer driven compensation culture.    I suppose it just isn't worth running the risk.

[hboy]

You can't legally even get a no win no fee lawyer, or syndicate class actions etc, in the IOM so quite how do we live in this "lawyer driven compensation culture" here when suing someone is going to require you to pay several thousands of pounds up front to engage an advocate on at least £350 a hour out of your own money before anything happens.

[Gladys]

I thought Glenside was a residential rather than a nursing home.  They have different requirements, I think.

[manx-person]

On 7/5/2017 at 10:00 AM, John Wright said:

I'm not sure that it's the capital structure and debt that are directly the issue. It's more a question of when built the minimum areas per single or double room were x & y and there wasn't a requirement that they be ensuite. Door widths weren't required to be as wide, nor corridors etc. 

Now respecified, for comfort, dignity, accessibility and health and safety of residents and staff and, most importantly, evacuation in emergency, it simply isn't always physically possible to reconfigure. Of course, if you are over borrowed you may not have the cash in any event.

I think the level of gearing has got a lot to do with it (in general don't know about this company in particular). If there are no unencumbered assets to secure then this limits the options - even if property conversion is possible there won't be the cash to do so.

[Mr Bear]

It must be so disappointing for the investment industry that the seemingly lucrative care industry has had regulations imposed on it.  It used to be a case of just wheeling in all the old people that were inconveniencing their families and hiding them out of sight, with a handful of overworked and underpaid staff to force-feed them and mop up their secretions.

Now they're expected to provide care and proper trained staff who don't flip and start abusing the people they care for.  (And seriously, I couldn't work in a care home, it takes the patience of a saint to actually care when some of the residents are aggressively defiant and prone to violence.)

Then there's the legal nuisance of the families that dump their mummy or daddy and then press legal charges when the dumped parent falls and dies because it was a different environment to the one they were used to, and the care staff couldn't foresee every possible way that a very active old person might injure themselves without being followed one-on-one continuously.

It's not a glamorous industry at all.  The people who work in these care homes should get proper recognition of just how unpleasant the job can be at times.

 

[WTF]

23 hours ago, hboy said:

You can't legally even get a no win no fee lawyer, or syndicate class actions etc, in the IOM so quite how do we live in this "lawyer driven compensation culture" here when suing someone is going to require you to pay several thousands of pounds up front to engage an advocate on at least £350 a hour out of your own money before anything happens.

isn't that the point,  the local lawyers want money money money win or lose,  and don't kid yourself  some of them take cases knowing full well they'll lose but better to prolong a fight and fill your own pockets than tell your client they've already lost.  why would the local lawyers want people not in their club who will work for free taking their time up??  and more importantly  why allow poor people a chance of justice against  the bigger the fish who know full well they can't afford to enter into litigation against them??   it allows people with money to buy immunity from their dodgy treatment of the poor they took advantage of.  

[hboy]

19 minutes ago, WTF said:

isn't that the point,  the local lawyers want money money money win or lose,  and don't kid yourself  some of them take cases knowing full well they'll lose but better to prolong a fight and fill your own pockets than tell your client they've already lost.  why would the local lawyers want people not in their club who will work for free taking their time up??  and more importantly  why allow poor people a chance of justice against  the bigger the fish who know full well they can't afford to enter into litigation against them??   it allows people with money to buy immunity from their dodgy treatment of the poor they took advantage of.  

No it is exactly not my point. In the UK you can pick a lawyer to pursue your frivolous claim from an advert on the TV between breaks in Jeremy Kyle. You don't have to pay him until you get a settlement. He might even be able to convince you to join in with a class action with lots of other people. Here none of that applies. Here you have to pay up front and at rates that by far exceed UK rates outside of London. So how is this contributing to Notwells entirely fictitious "lawyer driven compensation culture"? that apparently is rife in the IOM? it isn't. As you can't enter into frivolous litigation unless you are first prepared to lose a shed load of your own money which hardly anyone is prepared to do unless there really IS an issue that is properly worthy of legal redress. 

Typical made up "facts" once more. 

[notwell]

38 minutes ago, WTF said:

isn't that the point,  the local lawyers want money money money win or lose,  and don't kid yourself  some of them take cases knowing full well they'll lose but better to prolong a fight and fill your own pockets than tell your client they've already lost.  why would the local lawyers want people not in their club who will work for free taking their time up??  and more importantly  why allow poor people a chance of justice against  the bigger the fish who know full well they can't afford to enter into litigation against them??   it allows people with money to buy immunity from their dodgy treatment of the poor they took advantage of.  

The less well off get legal aid so if anything they have an advantage of entering in a legal case.

No one can sue here according to some. Which obviouslydoesn't tally with the published costs.

[hboy]

The criteria for Legal Aid is here

https://www.gov.im/legalaid

As the Government website says: "Whether a person qualifies or not depends on their financial position and whether they have good cause to pursue their case"

So they will assess whether the claim is frivolous, vexatious, or whether it has much chance in being successful as part of the process of assessing your claim for aid. They clearly won't just give you money to throw away on making someone's life difficult if they think there is little chance in getting a settlement.

Once again clutching at straws to prove yet another non "fact" 

[WTF]

2 minutes ago, hboy said:

The criteria for Legal Aid is here

https://www.gov.im/legalaid

As the Government website says: "Whether a person qualifies or not depends on their financial position and whether they have good cause to pursue their case"

So they will assess whether the claim is frivolous, vexatious, or whether it has much chance in being successful as part of the process of assessing your claim for aid. They clearly won't just give you money to throw away on making someone's life difficult if they think there is little chance in getting a settlement.

Once again clutching at straws to prove yet another non "fact" 

all very good,  but the cut of point for legal aid hardly gives an individual the finances for a genuine case against a big entity if they earn a quid too much.