El Justicia de Aragón, Fernando García Vicente, se ha dirigido a los Ayuntamientos de Aragón de localidades de más de 5.000 habitantes, excluyendo las capitales de provincia, con el fin de recabar información sobre la oferta de plazas de guardería para la atención de 0 a 3 años ya sean públicas o privadas, la demanda en cada uno de los tres niveles educativos de los Centros públicos de titularidad municipal y, en los supuestos en que dicha demanda supere la oferta, si el Ayuntamiento prevé la concesión de ayudas que permitan afrontar los gastos de escolarización de esos niños en centros privados.

Entiende el Justicia, que en nuestra sociedad se han producido cambios muy significativos que han transformado los modelos familiares -parejas que han de compatibilizar el trabajo de ambos fuera del hogar con la crianza y educación de los hijos, familias monoparentales, etc.- lo que ha suscitado nuevas necesidades sociales a las que se ha de dar una respuesta de forma adecuada.

Por otro lado, desde la Institución se es consciente de que aunque la etapa de enseñanzas obligatorias comienza con la Educación Primaria, a los 6 años, está generalizada entre la población la escolarización de los menores en el segundo ciclo de Educación Infantil, a los 3 años.

Esta realidad exige de las Administraciones públicas planificación y dedicación de recursos con el fin de prestar un servicio muy necesario lo mejor posible.

La atención del Justicia de Aragón hacia este tema es reiterada. A finales de 2014, hizo pública una Sugerencia dirigida a la Administración autonómica y a los Ayuntamientos de Zaragoza, Huesca Y Teruel solicitando el incremento de plazas públicas en el primer ciclo de Educación Infantil y en aquellas zonas en que la oferta sea insuficiente y no exista posibilidad de crear nuevos Centros o ampliar los ya existentes, se estudie la conveniencia de conceder ayudas -teniendo en cuenta criterios de renta, situación laboral de los padres, etc.- para la escolarización de estos niños que se tienen que matricular en un Centro privado por no tener plaza en uno público.  

Councils must carry out regular reviews of residents’ assets when assessing care home charges under deferred payments schemes, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has said.

The reminder has been prompted by an investigation following a complaint about North East Lincolnshire Council.  The family of a woman complained that the council did not deal correctly with the woman’s capital when determining her contribution towards the cost of her care – leaving her estate with less capital than it should have. They also complained that the council did not tell them that their mother might be entitled to attendance allowance when she lived in residential care.

The woman moved into residential care permanently in 2008.  She owned a property which was estimated to be worth in the region of £80,000 and brought her assets over the capital threshold of £23,250. The council did not signpost the family to obtain benefits advice when the family decided the placement was to become permanent.

The family did not want to sell the home immediately to pay for the mother’s care, so agreed to a deferred payment scheme.  This meant that the mother would create a debt against her property that would be repaid once her house was sold.

By the time the woman passed away in 2013 her debt had risen to £57,336. The family said once the home had been sold, and the debt repaid to the council, the estate was left with just £13,211. At no time had the council reassessed the woman’s contribution recognising that her residual capital had fallen below £23,250.  Had it done so, the mother would have paid a reduced amount, or assessed contribution, for her care, rather than being asked to pay the full amount till her death in June 2013. The family found out in 2013 that the mother could have been claiming attendance allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) since 2008. The DWP has agreed to pay the backdated allowance to the woman’s estate.

The family contacted the LGO and the subsequent investigation found the council did not carry out a financial reassessment around the time her remaining capital would have fallen below £23,250. The investigation also found fault with the council because the wording of its financial form creates an expectation that it will do more than it actually does to help people claim the benefits to which they may be entitled.

The council agreed to pay the woman’s estate an amount that would have brought it to £23,250 at her death. However, the decision by the DWP to backdate the payments means the estate is left with more than that figure already.

Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin said:

“We want to highlight to all councils that they should make regular reassessments of people’s finances when calculating their contributions towards the cost of their care. It is also good practice, when undertaking those reassessments for councils to signpost people to other organisations if they believe they may be able to claim additional benefits.

“I am pleased North East Lincolnshire Council has accepted my recommendations and has already started to put in place a policy that details how it will implement the requirements of the Care Act.“

The council has been asked to provide a written apology to the family for the time, trouble and distress of pursuing the complaint.

The council should also review all current care home residents who are on deferred payments agreements to ensure they are not similarly disadvantaged. It should also review its procedures to ensure it learns from the complaint and take into account of the requirements of the Care Act 2014.

The council has accepted the recommendations.