THE story regarding my son in the Echo (‘Mum wins son’s care package battle’ January 3) reveals the level of confusion that exists regarding both his case and care funding in general.

The ‘maladministration’ and ‘injustice’ that the Local Government Ombudsman reported on the part of Bournemouth Borough Council was because he was not treated the same as others but was subject to a huge cut in provision unlike the smaller reductions imposed on others.

So it was not that as a result of my ‘shouting loudest’ he would receive a ‘Rolls Royce’ service in his own home at the ‘expense of others’; rather that he would be treated fairly and in line with others, some of whom received an increase while he was subject to a staggering 70 per cent cut, despite being the highest level of care needs ie critical.

Care funding is expensive and is so in whatever setting it is delivered.

But again there appears to be the incorrect assumption that care in a person’s home under the Direct Payments scheme, is more expensive than if they were in residential care.

This is not the case. The quality is likely to be far greater in an individual’s home than in a care home but the cost is likely to be the same or cheaper at home.

If for example a profoundly disabled individual receives £100,000 to employ staff annually in their own home, that same care cost, or more, is likely to pass to a ‘provider’ if that person moves to a care home.

So if I am a ‘provider’ owner of a care home, and have eight residents and receive £800,000 a year for them, my wage bill may not be much more than for the person on direct payments in their own home, but the cost to the taxpayer ie council will be the same.

The cost of care is not reduced by an individual entering a care home, quite the contrary.

But in this case it will be profit for the ‘provider’ not constrained to the actual cost of care.

LORRAINE ZAVADIL, Bournemouth