OXFORD UNIVERSITY TO ABOLISH STUDENT FEES

One of Britain's top universities is to abolish student fees after the Supreme Court allowed it to charge a royalty on every use of English words online.

From 6 April 2018 Oxford University will use a monopoly granted by Henry VIII to demand money from the one billion people who write online in English. They will automatically be billed a ‘nanocharge’ of 0.0001p by Oxford University Press for every word they publish online if it is in the Oxford English Dictionary. Fees from the estimated fifty trillion English words written online each year will allow the university to make education free at all levels.

The Oxford English Dictionary itself only began in 1859 and rapidly became the definitive record of the language. 

But under Letters Patent of 1523 Henry VIII granted the University “our speciall lycence” to collect money “from thoos persons who prynt in the language of Englonde” and use such money “for the supporting and maynteynyng of the vnyuersite of Oxenford” and the order “shulde passe and be sealed vnder our greate Seale as by our said comaundement as ye haue more parfite knaulage of the language of Englonde than any other”.

Henry VIII Letters Patent of 1523 granting Oxford University rights to all English words ‘in perpetuity’. 

The royalty could have been charged at any time since 1523. But early attempts to levy printer’s type led to riots against the so-called “taxes on knowledge”. The situation changed this week when the Supreme Court held unanimously that the words of the Letters Patent could not be clearer” and gave Oxford the right “in perpetuyte” to the copyright on the words in its Dictionary. The court rejected a counter-claim by rival publisher Collins that the Letters Patent were repealed by the Monopolies Act 1624. “No such provision exists in the Statute” said the President of the Court and Oxford graduate Lord Justice Neuberger. Significantly, Justice Lady Hale, the Deputy President who went to Cambridge, did not dissent.

Professor Fiona Nomura, a Proctor of Oxford University Council, told me in an exclusive interview

“For nearly half a millennium Oxford has allowed England, Britain and the world to use the English language free of charge. However, the University is increasingly uncomfortable at Government demands to raise the fees charged to our undergraduates, this year to £9,250. So Congregation decided to use this ancient right to levy a charge on every online use of the words which are the University's copyright and make education at this world beating institution free again.”

She pointed out that Henry VIII himself was a great patron of education and founded several grammar schools and colleges.

Oxford claims the amount “will be too little for an individual to notice but will mean much to our students”.

All words published online will be compared with the online Dictionary and an automatic PayPal debit applied for each word in it. The nanocharge of 0.0001p levied on the estimated 500 trillion online uses of English words each year will raise £500m – more than enough to replace the £110m in fees paid by Oxford’s 12,000 undergraduates. The balance will be used for bursaries and to support its 11,000 postgraduates – who Congregation called “the entrepreneurs of tomorrow” in the so far secret meeting that made this historic decision.

However, Professor Angie Buff of Trinity College Cambridge said the move was a backward step. “It will lead to people misspelling and making up words to try to avoid the nanocharge. They may even start tweeting in foreign languages. It may help a few Oxford students but it will damage literacy and, ultimately, English itself.”

The levy will cover all websites and social media including blogs, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and even the subtitles on YouTube. Twitter alone publishes 3 trillion English words every year. Oxford is working with GCHQ to extend the nanocharge to encrypted services such as SnapChat.

Professor Nomura confirmed that the copyright only extends to the 600,000 words defined in the Oxford English Dictionary. “Neologisms such as ‘selfiecide’, ‘mansplaining’, and ‘nmh’ will still be free to use, should any ignoramus wish to do so.”

She warned however that the fee would be levied on one new word. At an emergency meeting of the Words Admission National Council English Register this week ‘Brexit’ was added to the Dictionary with immediate effect. Such speed is unusual for an organisation which took twenty-four years to admit the word ‘snozzle’. Professor Nomura denies the haste was to cash in on the word’s popularity. "It is simply because the definition is so clear" she said "Brexit means Brexit," Fi Nomura smiled, “end of."

UPDATE: I have learned that the nanocharge will be brought forward five days and will be applied from 0001 on Sunday 1 April.

Vs 2.0001

1 April 2018

CREDIT CARD FEES BANNED

From 13 January 2018 charging customers more if they pay by personal credit card is banned.

Before the ban people paying for goods or services online were often made to pay an extra fee if they chose to pay by credit card. These surcharges were typically 2% but could be as high as 5% of the price and often were not made clear until the very last moment.

Firms made excessive charges despite a cut in the fees which credit card providers charged them and in defiance of a law passed in 2013 which stated a surcharge could only reflect the actual cost of accepting a credit card payment,

So from Saturday 13 January 2018 such charges are banned completely. And not only for credit cards - the ban extends to any plastic payment and to PayPal, ApplePay and other electronic payment systems.

Enforcement
The law is clear but unfortunately how it will be enforced is not. Enforcement is principally in the hands of the local Trading Standards office. But the Trading Standards Institute has told Radio 4's Money Box programme that it is unlikely to be a priority.

"With no extra funding, budgets cut by over 56% within a decade and 250+ pieces of legislation to enforce and consider – it is unlikely to be a priority for any local TS." 

If a major firm is illegally surcharging people widely over the UK then the Competition & Markets Authority can also intervene.

Self-help

If you are charged extra for using a credit card or any other form of payment then you have the right to demand a refund yourself.

You could email the Chief Executive of the firm something like this

"When I bought XXXX from you on <date> you applied a surcharge of x% to the price because I paid by credit card.

I am writing to you for a refund of that surcharge under Regulation 10 of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012.

Since 13 January 2018 such surcharges are illegal under Regulation 6A(1) of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012, as amended by paragraph 12 of Schedule 8 to the Payment Services Regulations 2017.

I look forward to hearing from you. Should you not pay the refund within 14 days I shall pursue my case through the Alternative Dispute Resolution process or take action in the courts."

Find the CEO's email here.

Report them
You should also report the matter to trading standards. The way to do that is through the Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 03454 04 05 06. If Trading Standards get enough complaints about a particular firm it may take action. If the trader is based outside the UK but in the EU or Iceland, Norway, or Liechtenstein then the case will be passed to the UK European Consumer Centre. You can call them direct on 01268 88 66 90.

What firms might do
Firms can work round the new law in several ways.

• Refuse all credit card payments - this is the line that HMRC has taken. From 13 January 2018 you cannot pay your tax by credit card. The new law will not prevent a firm from setting a lower or upper limit for accepting credit card payment. 
• Impose one charge for any means of payment - even if you turn up with cash. As long as the charge is the same regardless of how you pay that is lawful.
• Put up prices generally to cover the extra cost. 

Exemptions
The ban applies to any retail payments when both parties are located anywhere in the European Union or in Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein. So it would not normally apply if you bought tickets online directly from an American airline.

The ban applies to any charge made from 13 January. But a charge made after that date under a contract entered into before 18 July 2017 is allowed.

It does not apply to goods or services bought using a corporate credit card. But even then the surcharge cannot exceed the actual cost to the company of that means of paying.

Further information
This Government guidance is useful for detail.

The Regulations implementing this law were made as a result of the EU Payment Services Directive 2015/2366.

Paul Lewis
version 1.02
13 January 2018

UNHAPPY CHRISTMAS

Around 25,000 people in weekly paid low paid work who top their wages up with Universal Credit will get less benefit or none at all in the month leading up to Christmas. 

Introduction
Universal Credit is supposed to make work pay. It uses real time information passed to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) by employers to adjust the benefit each month according to how much income is earned. So the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should know immediately if income changes in the month it is assessed over.

The underlying problem for weekly paid people is that weekly into monthly doesn't go exactly and they tend to budget weekly when the bulk of their money comes in, not monthly as the Department would like them to.

Jane
Jane lives in Altrincham with her daughter Zoe aged 5. After her well-paid partner left her she claimed Universal Credit on 9 September 2017. Her assessment period started seven days later (the infamous waiting period) and thus ran from 16 September to 15 October. She then had to wait seven days for the benefit to be credited to her bank account. It arrived on 22 October and will do so on the 22nd of every month. 

She is paid weekly and her earnings are constant so she expects the same amount of UC each month. In fact the amount she gets each month will depend on her income in the assessment period which runs from 16th to the 15th of the month. 

Jane works 40 hours a week at £12.50 an hour. Her Mum looks after Zoe outside school hours. In October and November she got £220 UC which was a great help. Her December payment is due on 22 December and she is glad it will come just in time for a late Christmas shop and stop her getting overdraft charges. Her employer pays her weekly on a Friday. In assessment period leading up to her her December payment she is paid on 17 and 24 of November and 1, 8, and 15 of December. Those five pay packets mean her income is 25% more than it was in the four pay packet months of October and November. That is enough to stop her entitlement to Universal Credit in December.

Although she has had extra income from her job in that assessment month her weekly pay is always earmarked to pay £520 a month rent, food, utility bills, council tax, and travel to work costs. She was counting on the usual Universal Credit payment to top up her earnings on 22nd to give her a bit more for her children after Christmas. When it is zero Jane has to abandon those plans as she budgets weekly and is not sure why the payment has stopped. 

Chris
Chris is 22 and moved to Southend-on-Sea in the summer to get a job working 38 hours a week on £7.05 an hour minimum wage. Chris had been homeless and in a hostel for some months. He rents a one bedroom flat which is allowed in those circumstances under Universal Credit rules. After tax his pay is £245 a week, nearly half of which goes to pay his rent. So when he is told he can get Universal Credit he is very pleased. He claimed it on 9 September too and was puzzled he had to wait so long for any money. But nearly £140 arrived in his bank account on 22 October and was very helpful, not least to pay back some money his work mates had lent him during his six week wait. The same amount arrived on 22 November and friends told him he would now get that every month. But it did not arrive on 22 December. He thought it was late over Christmas but it was still not there when he went back to work on 27th. 

By the end of the week his boss said he should call the Universal Credit helpline and kindly let him use the office phone in his lunch hour. He was told the lack of a payment was correct as he was no longer entitled to Universal Credit. He now has to reapply for his benefit before 15 Jan to make sure he gets his next payment on time on 22 January. He has to do that online. When he first claimed he used the local library. When he finally gets a time slot to use a computer there he is told he needs his username and password which he cannot remember. After two goes he answers his security questions and can eventually log on and re-claim. Not everyone would be so lucky

Why it happens
The experiences of Jane and Chris are not errors. They happen because Universal Credit is assessed over a period of a month - from the nth day of one to the (n-1)th day of the next (If the assessment period begins in the last days of the month, then it assessed from the end of one month to the end of the next). So the assessment period can be 31, 30, 28, or 29 days. The money is paid into a bank account seven days later. In four out of the twelve months in the year people who are paid weekly will have five paydays. In the other eight they will have four paydays. When their income in the assessment period changes that alters the amount of their universal credit. In the periods when they have five paydays the benefit will be reduced and in some cases it will disappear altogether.

Neil Couling, the Director General of Universal Credit agrees. Responding on Twitter @neilcouling when I first reported this story, he tweeted

• This so called problem would have occurred at Christmas 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. In fact it is just the system working as intended, adjusting to changes in household income.  

The same thing will happen to Jane and Chris four times every year. The next occasion will be the payment due on 22 April 2018, just after Easter. The effect is they will have to reclaim their benefit every four months. 

Numbers
The latest figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (15 November 2017) show there are 250,000 people on Universal Credit who work and the DWP has told me that 67,000 of them are paid weekly. Every month about a third of those weekly paid people will find that they have five pay days taken into account and their money will be reduced. The DWP has confirmed it will happen to 25,000 claimants in December, as it will every month. For some, like Jane and Chris, the rise will be enough to wipe out their entitlement to Universal Credit. Others will just get less Universal Credit. The Department points out that their wages and their total income will be higher in five week assessment periods. That is strictly true. But as the first payday arrives on the 17th and the next on the 15th of the next month it is not much help when juggling regular outgoings on a limited weekly budget, especially over Christmas.

The DWP has also said in a @dwppressoffice tweet

• UC payments adjust to people’s earnings so they get a stable income each month including over Christmas

But the figures show monthly incomes are not stable. Chris will have a total income from wages and benefit of £1122 in months with four weeks and £1229 in five week months - a difference of around £107 which is hardly stable. Jane's monthly income changes by £185.

The problem is recognised in the official explanation of payment cycles which confirms that people paid more frequently than monthly will face reduced or missing Universal Credit payments in some assessment periods.

• You will need to be prepared for a month when you get 5 wage payments in one assessment period and budget for a potential change in your monthly Universal Credit payments.

As Neil Couling said in his tweet, this is how Universal Credit is supposed to work. Which does not of course make it right or convenient. But, again as the DWP and many welfare rights specialists say, it is a lot better than tax credits which are normally worked out on income a year in arrears.

Re-claiming
If the benefit does vanish, the method for re-claiming is different depending on the Jobcentre where the claim was first made.

• In Live Service areas (also called Gateway areas) the claim should just be rolled over automatically. It only ends if an individual is above the income limit to get some benefit for more than six consecutive months. Live Service areas will disappear by the end of 2018.
• People in Full Service areas - like Jane and Chris - will have to reapply. This should be a simple online process and if done promptly the claim should be accepted and they should keep the same assessment period and payday.

The Jobcentre Plus or Work Coach should know which sort of area it is. It can also be checked on this website. If the benefit is reduced rather than extinguished it will be higher the next month.

Other payment periods
The problem does not just affect those who are paid each week. People paid fortnightly will have two months in the year in which they get three pay packets instead of two. Anyone who is paid four weekly will get two pay packets in a single month once a year. Even those paid monthly can be affected if their firm brings forward a payday to before a Bank Holiday, such as Christmas or Easter, and that means there are two monthly payments made in one assessment period. Tax rebates and payments from the Student Loans Company can also affect one month's benefit. In all those cases it is more likely than with weekly payments that the Universal Credit will be wiped out and a re-claim will be required in Full Service areas.

Roll out

As Universal Credit is rolled out across the UK during 2018 all areas will become Full Service areas. New claimants of working age benefits will normally have to claim Universal Credit rather than the old benefits such as Tax Credits, Housing Benefit and the income-related versions of Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance. There are some exceptions but those will probably end from December 2018 when the roll out is complete. Note that the contributory versions of Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance will still be available for up to six and up to twelve months regardless of income to people who have sufficient National Insurance contributions and fulfil other conditions.

In the run up to Christmas 2018 many more people will be affected by these five and four week paydays as the number of those claiming Universal Credit will have risen due to the national roll out for new claimants. After 2018 people already getting the old benefits will be moved in stages to Universal Credit. By 2022 everyone on the old benefits will have been moved to Universal Credit and an estimated eight million people will get it. On present figures that would mean 300,000 working people who are paid weekly would face a lower or missing UC payment in December if their Assessment Period has five paydays in it.

The calculation

Before the DWP provided a figure of 25,000 there was some dispute about how many people are in Jane's position. The calculation is fiddly but perfectly possible.

• Take the 31 possible UC payment days in the month before Christmas from Friday 24 November to Saturday 23 December
• Look at the corresponding 31 assessment periods which begin with 18 October to 17 November and end with 17 November to 16 December.
• Count the number of work paydays (assumed to be Fridays) in those 31 assessment periods. There are 12 assessment periods with five Fridays and 19 with four Fridays. 
• The proportion of assessment periods with five Fridays is 12/31 = 38.7%. With a total of 67,000 weekly paid Universal Credit claimants that gives the figure of 25,935 whose assessment period will have five paydays in it. 
• Using different paydays there are either 10 (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday),11 (Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday) or 12 (Friday) assessment periods with five paydays. Friday is the most common payday so I used Friday. Using other paydays the number of those affected is 21,613 for 10 and 23,774 for 11. Those results are not unexpected. With 67,000 weekly paid and each being affected one month in four a simple average gives 22,333 affected each month.
• The main assumptions are that weekly pay is constant and people are equally likely to apply on any day of the year.

The DWP now says 25,000 people had five weekly paydays in December. It cannot yet say how many will lose all and how many will some of their UC. The ones who lose it all will be those with UC payments that are relatively small.

Fiddly bits
There will be a very few people among those who have a 'work allowance' whose income from their job is so low that the extra week's pay will not reduce their Universal Credit.

People who lose all their UC payment in five week months but get some in four week months will end up over the year with more UC than if they were paid the same annual income but monthly. At lesat, they will if the make sure they reclaim the UC in time.

The DWP cannot at the moment say how many of those affected by the five week problem will lose all their Universal Credit and how many will lose only some of it.

The loss of Universal Credit in a month can affect entitlement to other benefits such as council tax support, free school meals, and free or cheaper NHS services. Some older NHS forms may not have a 'universal credit' box to tick to get the help even if it is available. If the DWP takes a third party deduction for rent arrears or other items these will also stop if there is no UC in a month to deduct it from.

In Scotland people in Full Service areas who claimed from 4 October 2017 can choose to be paid twice a month.

All employers do not pass the information on pay on to HMRC immediately and that can mean Universal Credit is - wrongly - assessed on reported income rather than income actually received.

Exemplars
Jane and Chris are exemplars, not real case studies. The numbers are rounded and may differ by a pound or two from the actual amounts they would get. All the figures have been checked with two or three sources. It is assumed that neither of them has savings or other income.

Jane and her erstwhile partner did not claim tax credits before he left her. Jane will also get Child Benefit and possibly maintenance from Zoe's father. Neither would affect her Universal Credit payment. Neither Chris nor Jane is entitled to help with their council tax - their incomes are too high.

version 2.1

20 December 2017

GRENFELL TOWER - FINANCIAL HELP FOR SURVIVORS AND RELATIVES

THIS PAGE IS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED

Survivors of the fire in Grenfell Tower in Kensington lost everything except the clothes they slept in. They lost not just their clothes and possessions but also any cash they had and their bank cards. Any financial records such as insurance policies will also have been lost.

Banks
Access to your own money means establishing your ID. The banks all say they have procedures in place to enable customers with no documents to establish who they are. In some cases specialist staff will be available.

They will speed up the process of supplying debit cards. Barclays says it can do them on the same day and will take customers to a branch where that can be done.

The banks say emergency access to cash and if necessary overdrafts will be available to customers who need it.

Some banks will be opening local branches over the weekend.

Here are the bank helplines

Bank of Scotland 0345 721 3141

Barclays 0345 734 5345

Coop 03457 212212

Halifax 0345 720 3040

HSBC 03456 092527

Lloyds 0345 300 0000

Nationwide 0800 917 23 93

NatWest 0161 451 0217

Royal Bank of Scotland 0161 451 0218

Santander 0800 0156 382

Insurance
Residents who did have insurance  should contact their insurer. People who may not remember who the policy is with should check their bank statements to find who they paid. Insurers should act swiftly to provide cash and meet claims. They understand it will be difficult for residents who have lost all their documents in the fire.

Grants
At least one in four households have no insurance for their possessions. In areas where incomes are low the proportion is higher. So it is possible that half or more of the survivors have no cover for the losses they have incurred.

The funds raised for residents are being administered centrally by the Charities Commission. People should apply locally or call the Red Cross on 0800 458 9472.

Legal advice

Local residents who need or want legal advice can contact North Kensington Law Centre or call  020 8969 7473 or email info@nklc.co.uk

Government advice
There is a very comprehensive list of where to get help on the Government's support for people affected page. It includes benefits, physical injuries, exposure to smoke, mental health, psychological trauma, passports and immigration, driving licences, pets, and bereavement support. Also details of how to volunteer or give money.

THIS BLOG IS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED.

25 June 2017
vs 1.2

GAUKE'S FIRST JOB

UPDATE
The Government has now published its review.

Moving from the Treasury, which reigns in spending, to the Department for Work and Pensions, which spends more than any other department, is going to be a bit of a shock for the new Secretary of State, David Gauke.

There will be lots to do. But top of his his list has to be obeying the law.

Although we have had an election the law still applies during that period. And since 7 May the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been breaking it. Specifically section 27(2) of the Pensions Act 2014.

Until 11 June the law breaker was Damian Green - now promoted to First Secretary of State (for Game of Thrones fans think the Hand of May). From 4pm on 11 June it was David Gauke.

Review of state pension age
Section 27 of Pensions Act 2014 is headed 'Periodic review of rules about pensionable age' and says the Secretary of State must review state pension age from time to time and publish a report on the outcome of that review.

The first review under that section was done by the former CBI Director General John Cridland and was published on 23 May along with a parallel review by the Government Actuary.

John Cridland recommended bringing forward the rise in the pension age to 68. At the moment it is scheduled for 2044 to 2046 affecting people born from 1977. Cridland recommended bringing that rise forward by seven years to start in 2037 and end in 2039. That would affect people born in 1970 and later - those who are now in their later 40s.

The Government Actuary took a longer view and while not actually recommending anything, looked ahead to a possible rise to 69 in 2040-42 affecting people born from 1972 who are aged 45 and younger now. And then to the age of 70 by 2054-56 which would affect people born from 1985 who are in their early thirties now.

The law being broken
The Act was clear that the Secretary of State had to publish a report in response to that review. And it set out a timetable to do so. In a clause designed to prevent a government hesitating or putting off a decision that will be politically very difficult s.27(2) says unequivocally "The first report must be published before 7 May 2017."

It wasn't. So for each day from 7 May the Secretary of State was breaking the law. Damian Green broke it on each of 36 days until his term of office ended. And David Gauke is now breaking it every day that passes from 11 June.

Reasons given
The excuse from the Department for Work and Pensions was that on 23 April Parliament voted for a General Election and Parliament was subsequently dissolved on 3 May. So there was no Parliament - though there were of course Ministers - to consider such a report published before 7 May.

It said that a long term policy like this could only be decided by the next Government.

It also claimed that what is called 'purdah' prevented it being published. Purdah is the convention that once an election has been called no new policies are announced and civil servants do not carry out anything but routine work.

However, in another case on 27 April the High Court made it clear that purdah was merely a convention and did not override legal duties. It instructed the Government to publish a long-awaited report on pollution which the government had tried to defer until after the election. The Government obeyed.

Legal action
Two legal attempts have been made to force the publication of the report on state pension age. Neither has succeeded. The most thorough response was from the Government Legal Department on 26 May which said:

• The Secretary of State did not consider he had breached the statutory provision
• The report could not be completed now that an election was under way
• Even if forced to respond the Secretary of State could fulfil his duty by a short report saying 'yes' or 'no' or 'some changes may be appropriate' which would be a pointless exercise. 

The letter warned that any proceedings would be resisted. None were in fact pursued.

Imperative
But now there is a new Government and a new parliament there is no excuse for not complying with the law and issuing a full and reasoned report.

David Gauke must do so promptly as he will be in breach of the law every day until he does.

12 June 2017
vs 1.00

GRAYLING CORRECTED - CONSERVATIVE CARE PLANS

Chris Grayling is Secretary of State for Transport. So he can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding the details of the current means-test applied to people who go into a care home. Perhaps less forgivable is not understanding the detail of a key proposal in the Conservative Manifesto on which he was re-elected on 9 June. But he got both wrong on Question Time on BBC One on the day after the election. Here is what he said and why it is wrong.

"The irony is there was never such a thing as a dementia tax."

That is true, though not ironic. But some people with dementia face - and will face - paying more for their care than others as they tend to need care for a lot longer than those with other illnesses in later life.

"The package compares quite favourably with the situation at the moment." 

It doesn't. As I shall explain.

"Most people don't understand that the situation today is that if you go into residential care and you have no other financial means your house has to be sold there and then..."

That is wrong for three reasons.

First, if the person's need is primarily medical then the NHS will pay the whole bill without a means-test. A cash-strapped NHS will try to get out of doing so but it is the law that it should.  

Secondly, many people do not have to contribute to their care from the value of their home. If their spouse, partner or a relative aged 60 or more still lives in their home its value is exempt and no contribution has to be made from its value. That is also true if their child aged under 18 or a relative who is disabled lives there. There are other exemptions.

Thirdly, a person needing care who has to use the value of their home towards their care costs does not have to sell their home 'there and then' or indeed at any time while they are alive. Some choose to do so - I have estimated that number at around 19,000 a year - but no-one has to. Since 2001 they can ask for a deferred payment agreement and pay it from their estate when they die. Until 2015 the debt clocked up interest free. In April 2015 the right to a deferred payment scheme was put into statute and interest is charged on the debt as it accrues, currently at the maximum rate of 1.35% a year - to rise to 1.65% from July. The local authority may make some other charges of a few hundred pounds to set up the agreement.

"...and the money is spent down to the last £23,000. That's the situation today."

Once the person in the care home and the value of their own home is taken into account then its value is used up as the bill accrues. But very few people will spend it all down to the limit which is in fact £23,250. ONS says the average house price in England is £233,000 and the average cost of a residential care home in England is around £700 a week or £36,400 a year (Laing Buisson 2017). It would take five years nine months to use up all the value of the average home down to £23,500. Most people in a care home live two years or so. So very few will end up with only £23,250 left.

"And it's been the case for the last ten, twenty, thirty years in this country."

It has not. The paragraphs above take us back to 2001. Before that another legal provision enabled people simply not to pay their care bill. Until 2015 the local authority still had to provide the care and could take the money owed - again interest free - after they died. 

"What was brought forward in the Conservative Manifesto actually took less from people than the current system."

Perhaps the biggest fib of all.

The Manifesto plan is better in one respect only. It raises the £23,250 to £100,000. So anyone living in an average priced house in England would lose all its value bar £100,000 after three years eight months. That is far longer than most people live in a care home so for most it would make no difference from the present system. But for those who live longer than that time it would enable their heirs to inherit more. So it takes less in that limited way.

However, it would make another major change which was not explicitly stated in the Manifesto but which both Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) and a Conservative MP Chris Philp confirmed to me was the case. 

The plans would remove the exemption for the family home if a spouse, partner or elderly relative was still living there. So the value of the home would be taken into account in far more cases than at present. The home would not be sold to pay the bill until after the other person had also died. But its value would eventually be used. So the Conservative plans would take far more from many people than the present system.

They would also take more from people who got their care at home rather than moving into a care home. For the first time the value of their own house would be taken into account while they - and of course their spouse etc - lived there. That was a new provision and would cost those people who owned their own home a lot more than the present rules. 

What about the proposals for a cap on the total cost anyone would have to pay?

The cap was not, of course, mentioned in the Manifesto. Plans to have one were leaked to the press early in May before the Manifesto's launch on 17th. But it was not in the Manifesto and Ministers where wheeled out on the day it was launched to justify the lack of a cap in it. However, the outcry about the so-called dementia tax (and Grayling was right that there wasn't one) was so great that by the time the Welsh version of the Manifesto was launched five days later Theresa May announced "We will have an upper limit, absolute limit, on the amount people will pay for care."

That was not mentioned in the Wales version of the Manifesto either. And no-one would say how much that cap would be but, we were told, it would be part of the consultation in a Green Paper after the election.

If the cap followed the plans of Andrew Dilnot - which were specifically rejected in the Manifesto as they "mostly benefited a small number of wealthier people"- it would not be an absolute cap. The reasons are complex but the cap of £72,000 proposed by the last Coalition government would have been effectively double that for most and the few who reached it would still have to pay a board and lodging charge of £230 a week (£11,960 a year) for life. My blog on the £72,000 cap explains the arithmetic.

However, Theresa May's phrase of an 'absolute cap' was repeated to me by Chris Philp in my Money Box interview on the Manifesto. I put to him that a Dilnot cap would not be a cap at all as it would leave an unlimited liability.

"Not an unlimited liability...there will be an absolute cap and the Prime Minister made that clear…the Prime Minister Theresa May was extraordinarily clear there will be an absolute cap that will cover all of those liabilities." 

That part of the interview starts at 8'20" into the programme.

Chris Grayling concluded his remarks on Question Time by saying

"We've got to learn lessons about how that came across, how it was launched, about the communication of it."

Indeed. That is the truest thing he said.

The rules here and the Conservative Manifesto plans apply to England. Care is a devolved matter in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland where the rules are similar but different in detail.

There is an interesting analysis of the Manifesto plans on paying for care by the BBC's Nick Triggle

10 June 2017
vs 1.02

MONEY BOX 3 JUNE 2017

Money Box agenda Saturday 3 June 2017 BBC Radio 4 after the midday news

Election fever
My interviews with the political parties on their General Election Manifestos reaches its finale.

Ian Blackford, the SNP work and pensions spokesman, talks to me about his party's plans for tax. Will the SNP support higher rate taxpayers paying more?

The Conservatives would not provide a Minister or party spokesman to interview. Instead they put up Chris Philp, a backbench MP until the election was called and a member until then of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee. He talks to me about the state pension triple lock, the party's tax plans, and the care cap.

Unfortunately UKIP was not able to put anyone up for interview. Its personal finance policies are set out on pp10-12 of its Manifesto.

BA regrets...but not that much
British Airways is facing calls this weekend to pay compensation automatically to the estimated 75,000 passengers hit by its computer problems over the Bank Holiday. It is hard to imagine the circumstances where anyone affected will not be due fixed compensation under a European Directive. Normally that will be €400 (£350) or €600 (£525) per passenger. But BA is insisting they all claim. At one time it was wrongly advising them to claim through their travel insurance. And for a while it said they could phone a BA helpline giving an 0844 number. That is contrary to rules about premium rate phone lines.

Helen Dewdney from the The Complaining Cow explains your rights when a flight is cancelled or delayed. 

Listen and contact
That will fill our Radio 4 sandwich between the News and the News Quiz. And a rather better one than many BA Bank Holiday passengers got as they waited, and waited, and waited! Our best before date, as ever, is noon on Saturday and the programme is served up refried at 2100 on Sunday. Or it can be eaten fresh anytime on the marvellous BBC Radio i-Player.

Send us your ideas or problems you want us to look into through the ‘Contact Us’ tab. Or email moneybox@bbc.co.uk. The website also has background and further information on all the stories on Money Box and Money Box Live.

TV trail
I will be trailing one item on BBC One Breakfast on Saturday. Usually it’s around 0840 but the time can and does change.

2 June 2017