Responding to issues raised by personal assistants (PAs), their employers, local authorities and service support groups, Fish has launched a new public liability policy to protect PAs and carers.
      
The move comes amid increasing concern regarding PAs who advise they are self employed. Such scenarios mean service users believe they need not take out employers liability insurance as their PA is not an employee.  However it important that self employed PAs take out public liability insurance to protect themselves those they care for and the public. However, the distinction between being employed and self employed is not necessarily clearly defined. This grey area is causing worry among social care professionals and service users with real concerns expressed that both PA and service user may both end up without insurance protection.

Reacting to these concerns Fish’s new policy provides PAs with up to £5m public liability cover,   regardless of their employment status. In addition it protects against a key risk which other policies typically do not - errors and omissions in the provision of medical treatment. Designed to serve the specific needs of PAs and carers it also includes cover for accidental damage and personal accident. It also extends protection to public and local authorities by including ‘indemnity to principal.’ This means that that they are covered in the same way as the policyholder providing they comply with the policy’s requirements.

Priced at only £89 per year – less than £2 a week - it therefore provides protection and reassurance not just to PAs but service users and those that support them.

“Through our discussion with a variety of people involved in or receiving support under independent living initiatives we identified an area of real concern,” commented Fish’s sales and marketing director, Warren Dickson. “PAs need to ensure they are adequately protected because their role exposes them to particular risks. Their role may, for example, involve giving medication and many policies currently on the market simply do not protect against the possibility of human error in performing such a vital, day-to-day task. By designing cover to meet the specific needs of PAs, irrespective of whether they are defined as employed or self employed, we have successfully addressed the concerns of care providers, care recipients and the professionals who advise them.  ”

To download an application form for the new Carer and PA Policy , click here or to view  the policy wording click here.



Please note this policy is designed as a complement to, not a replacement for, employer’s liability insurance
 

An independent investigation carried out by the UK’s biggest disability lifestyle magazine has seen Fish named as the best provider of car insurance to disabled people.

A ‘mystery shopper’ exercise by Able magazine saw Fish given the only five star rating with the magazine reporting that our “customer services representatives have an in depth knowledge of disability and adapted vehicles [and] gave us the most confidence that our insurance needs would be taken care of.” Describing us as the “most clued up on the various modifications.” It also noted how, unlike many providers, Fish covers all adaptations and includes benefits specific to disabled people and their vehicles. It concluded that: “All of this creates a feeling of reassurance and helped make the process of getting a quote relatively stress free.”

The report in the magazine’s July/August edition also found huge variations in premiums with differences of up to 140% in comparable cover. It also warned that online price comparison sites may not be equipped for dealing with the specialist needs of disabled people.”

Fish’s sales and marketing director Warren Dickson said the Able magazine report raises important issues. “It’s particularly worrying that many of the country’s 2.3 million or more disabled drivers may not be adequately protected, meaning they could be well out of pocket should they need to claim. They may also end up paying way more than they need. People with disabilities or mobility issues have quite specific insurance needs which general insurers and websites are often not simply geared up to meet. Disabled drivers are too often getting a raw deal,” he said.

The Able magazine report follows an investigation last year by a national newspaper which claimed insurers were “dodging anti-discrimination laws by refusing to cover people with disabilities” It found that of just one of 115 insurers featured on one price comparison site will to offer cover to an experienced disabled driver.”

•  To find out how you can get your copy of Able magazine click here
•  For details of Fish’s specialist car insurance for disabled drivers and carers, click here.

Congratulations are due to Fish director Mike Rogan who has raised a massive £6,500 for Mencap after making his debut in the London Marathon.

Running in aid of Mencap,  the leading charity for parents, carers and people with a learning disability, he finished the gruelling 26-mile course in an impressive four hours and 38 minutes.

Reflecting on his achievement, Mike said: “It was a tremendous and uplifting experience. There was real camaraderie among the runners and the support from tens of thousands of spectators was immense, really spurring you on. The sense of achievement when I crossed the finishing line was overwhelming, topped only by the realisation of how much money I had raised for such a brilliant cause.”

He added that whilst many charities were deserving of support by nearly 37,000 runners who took part, he had chosen Mencap as one close to his heart and that of Fish. “Mencap does so much every day to help people with learning disabilities enjoy as full a life as possible. We share a similar philosophy at Fish in that our business very much supports people with disabilities in securing independence.”
 

The publication of a parliamentary report on mobility scooters has sparked concern among users about the liabilities they might face .

Fish Insurance has received a flood of calls after media discussion of the House of Commons Transport Committee report. This called for greater regulation of scooters whilst acknowledging that little data existed on how many are in use and the number and type of accidents they might be involved in.

Media coverage focused on calls for testing and compulsory insurance and highlighted cases involving serious and fatal injuries. Fish says this has prompted concerns among users about the potential liabilities they might face.

“We welcome the debate and in particular support the calls made for more data to be sourced before any consideration is given to the introduction of new regulations,” commented Elissa Foster, chief executive of the company. She added: “The discussion has also focused the minds of scooter owners on the liabilities they might face should they cause an injury or death. Typically we see claims for accidental damage but where injuries do occur five and six figure liabilities are not at all unusual.”
 
“A scooter owner who hits a pedestrian and causes a leg fracture could face a claim for £10,000 and other injuries attract much higher awards, with one current case valued at £120,000.  We regard insurance, which includes third party cover, as a sensible precaution against the possible risks mobility scooter owners can face. We’re talking less than £70 a year for real peace of mind at a time when someone is reportedly facing the loss of the family home due to an uninsured scooter accident. ”

 

The new Fish Insurance Newsletter for September 2009 is now available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, please click here to download it. You can download the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader by clicking here.

David Amess, the Conservative MP for Southend West, has called for new laws to make mobility scooter insurance compulsory.

The town's Essex Echo reports that Mr. Amess has tabled a parliamentary question on the issue but has been rebuffed by  Chris Mole, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Transport. In his response Mr. Mole said: "We currently have no plans to introduce legislation requiring users of mobility scooters to hold insurance. They are nevertheless subject to the law of civil liability. We do strongly recommend that mobility scooter users take out insurance and that they avail themselves of the advice and training that is available in a number of locations such as Shopmobility venues." He added: "We are aware that the number of mobility scooters is on the increase. The Department for Transport is procuring a survey to help assess the number of mobility scooter users and the extent to which their use may have injured people."

Mr. Amess's call was backed by Ron Sverdloff, director of mobility dealer Scooter Club UK, who told the Echo: "“I’m astounded that it’s not a legal requirement already. As you get older you lose your ability to retain the skills you learned when you were younger. It’s not a fault of the individual, it’s a part of ageing, a natural process. But that makes them a little bit more risky on the pavements.

“Insurance is a good idea for everybody’s benefit.”

To read the full Echo story,click here.

Fish Insurance is looking to appoint more appointed representatives from the dealer trade after signing up northern mobility specialist, Millercare to its Dealer Referral Scheme.

The company - established for over 30 years and now serving around 70,000 people with disabilities or limited mobility - is looking to build stronger links with like-minded dealer businesses.

“We want to build a national network of authorised representatives comprising only the biggest and best UK mobility dealers,” commented Fish’s sales and marketing director, Warren Dickson.  “We’re looking for people who share our business values, who are committed to delivering the highest standards and value and who are interested in working with us for mutual benefit.”

The Fish Insurance Dealer Referral scheme provides dealers with generous commissions for referrals which are subsequently converted to a sale. The scheme is a simple way for dealers to generate an incremental revenue stream.

Mobility dealers interested in the scheme can contact Fish for more details by clicking here.

Fish Insurance has appointed leading mobility product specialists Millercare as an appointed representative. The deal will see Millercare introducing its retail and online customers to Fish’s range of policies specifically designed to protect mobility scooters, manual and powered wheelchairs and in-home products.

Commenting on the deal, Fish Insurance’s sales and marketing director Warren Dickson said: “Millercare has an impressive trading pedigree stretching back for nearly 60 years and is one of the UK’s biggest and most respected mobility dealers. It’s exactly the kind of company which we seek to partner as we grow and strengthen our relationship with the trade the Dealer Referral Scheme.”

Millercare is a major player in the North West market with showrooms featuring new, used and reconditioned mobility products in Blackpool, Bolton, Manchester, Oswaldtwistle, Preston, Stockport, Warrington and Wigan. It also trades nationally through Millercare Direct, its online store, with all its operations backed by its own Service Centre. Its wide-ranging portfolio includes electric adjustable beds, stairlifts, bathlifts, recliners, public access and platform lifts electric scooters, wheelchair ramps, and electric and manual wheelchairs.

For further details of Millercare’s products and services, click here.

Pictured marking the deal are Millercare's business development director, Eric Filbin (left) and Fish compliance manager John Garrard.

Personal assistants are three times more likely to take their employer to tribunal than other employees according research by Fish.

The company analysed the calls received by the specialist employment law advice line it provides to users of direct payments and other personal budget schemes through its Independent Living Insurance policy. Comparative analysis with the average rate of cases reaching an employment tribunal among employers in the wider business revealed direct payment users are at much higher risk.

 “We were quite shocked at the disparity between those employed via direct payments and businesses generally, not least because the relationship between personal assistants and their employers is traditionally closer,” commented  chief executive, Elissa Foster. “It’s clear that these relationships cannot be relied upon to ensure effective resolution of disputes and that independent and expert legal and insurance support is essential. Indeed it may well be that, because many dismissals are the result of heat-of-the-moment disputes that the closeness of the relationship may in fact be a key factor.”

The firm believes a key reason for the high rate is that disabled people who take advantage of personalised funding schemes are often unaware of their responsibilities under employment law. “Overnight people go from being receivers of care to commissioners of it. Whilst clearly welcome in promoting independent living it does mean service users assume significant responsibilities,” explains Foster.  “Naturally the system is centred on care provision with social and support workers understandably not experts in employment law. However the system can leave service users in a vulnerable position, especially if they do not have access to specialist advice. In turn that can impact on care and budgets as disabled people face the stress of a tribunal and the possibility of onerous financial awards being made against them.”

Mrs. Foster cites a recent case where a local authority agreed to fund the cost of initial legal fees – of around £1,000 – from a direct payment budget after the service user blamed the advice it was given by support workers. In another case a service user was found guilty of sex discrimination after sacking a pregnant carer and a tribunal made a £25,000 award against him.”

Fish, which has been offering specialist insurance to disabled people for over 30 years, pioneered cover for people receiving direct payments.

Disabled drivers may represent a lower risk to insurers but can end up paying high premiums. In an article which first appeared in Mobilise magazine Warren Dickson asks why and advises how disabled drivers can get the best car insurance deal.

Society is not supposed to discriminate against people with disabilities and we have legislation outlawing it. But the reality is often quite different. Sometimes discrimination can be an un-intentional by-product of market forces. A good example is car insurance where the march of technological progress has, largely unwittingly, created a significant obstacle for disabled drivers trying to root out the best deal.

In recent years we’ve seen an explosion of price comparison websites. These can be incredibly useful if you’re buying something simple like a DVD player. A few taps on your keyboard and you can find the best deal on the internet. But if you’re trying to buy insurance and do not fall within the largely homogenous mass-market things are not so easy and you could end up unwittingly paying more when, in fact, you probably should be paying less.

The reasons are simple. These sites need to be as easy as possible so that the potential purchaser need make as few clicks as possible before hitting the buy button. They want bog-standard not non-standard risks. If you’re Jo Bloggs driving a standard specification car with an uncomplicated claims and healthy history these sites are great because they’re designed for you. But if you answer “yes” to a question like “Does your car have any modifications?” then things can go awry. Typically underwriters don’t like modifications as they can affect both a vehicle’s value and performance. So by answering “yes” you may suddenly find many underwriters don’t want to do business with you, and the choice offered by a site suddenly narrows. The odds of getting the best deal are immediately reduced. Even with that narrowed choice you may find that simply having a modified vehicle plays against you, despite the fact that in our experience wheelchair and disability adapted vehicles represent a lower theft risk than standard vehicles.

Our experience shows disabled drivers also represent a lower risk and therefore deserve to pay lower premiums. Other, non-specialist insurers may take a contrary view. So, although you and your vehicle are low risk your premium may be high.

The danger in using price comparison sites is not just that you may not find the best price – you may not find the best cover. Disability insurance specialists like Fish don’t feature on these sites because, like you, our policies don’t fit neatly into a mass market slot. A specialist by definition understands the specialist nature of the market. That means not just better understanding the risks – and offering premiums that properly reflect them – but the cover that best suits a disabled driver. For example, does a general insurer’s car policy cover wheelchairs in transit? A mobility allowance? New for old cover which specifically protects modifications and adaptations? Can a carer or personal assistant be covered even if your names on the policy?

But don’t dismiss the internet altogether. Insurance specifically designed for disabled drivers is available online direct from specialist providers. You’re just unlikely to find it on the plethora of price comparison sites. So what should you do?

• If you do use a price comparison site, don’t assume it’s going to find you the lowest available price. Shop around, including at least one disability insurance specialist on your list.
  
• Beware differences in cover.  Check what you’re planning to buy actually meets your needs
• Think how comfortable you would be dealing with an insurance provider should you unfortunately need to make a claim. This is when many people discover the true value of their broker
• If you have any doubts about the suitability offered then call and check – if there’s anything that’s vaguely contentious get a response in writing to avoid the possibility of future disputes.

Follow these tips and you should be well on your way to driving a great deal – one that offers good value through a combination of not just the right price, but the right cover.

For details of Fish Insurance's specialist insurance for disabled drivers click here

Warren Dickson is sales and marketing director at Fish Insurance

The Observer newspaper has revealed how UK motor insurers are “dodging anti-discrimination laws by refusing to cover people with disabilities.”

The paper highlighted how insurers are unwilling to provide quotes to disabled drivers who own modified vehicles. It exposed how searches on online price comparison sites demonstrated how insurers were getting around provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The paper reported that when it tried to get a quote for a disabled driver with 25 years' experience and a five-year no-claims bonus on a leading price comparison site, only one of 115 insurers and brokers would offer cover. Another price comparison search yielded similar results highlighting the scale of the problem which could affect millions of disabled drivers.

The article also quoted Fish’s sales and marketing director Warren Dickson who noted that: “We have been seeing this for some time, despite the fact that - if anything - people with disabilities are generally better risks than many other groups of motorists."

The charity Mobilise, which promotes mobility for disabled people, also slammed insurers with director of policy Helen Smith saying: “It is not right that companies should have a blanket refusal to give you a quote, and many people find it difficult to get a quote online."

Mr. Dickson has also commented on the issue in the September edition of Mobilise magazine.

To read the full Observer article click here. For details of Fish Insurance’s specialist, tailor-made insurance for disabled drivers click here or call 0800 012 6329

 

An upgrade of the Fish Insurance website means you can now get buy Mobility Scooter and Independent Living Employment Protection insurance online. We have invested in the site to give our customers yet another way to pay, with cover available to buy in just a few clicks.

Of course if you prefer the human touch you can still call our team of friendly advisers on freephone* 0800 012 6239  and pay by credit or debit card, or posting a cheque.


* Calls are free from most landlines but some networks and mobile  operators may charge
 

Peter Smallridge CBE, a former director of social services, asks if funding 'caps' are compromising the ethos of independent living

Choice Words

Click on the direct.gov.uk page titled  An Introduction to Direct Payments and you are promptly advised that The aim of a direct payment is to give more flexibility in how services are provided. By giving individuals money in lieu of social care services, people have greater choice and control over their lives, and are able to make their own decisions about how their care is delivered.

That last part is key. Greater choice and control. That idea of empowering receivers of care services is widely embraced within our profession. OK, there may be other issues at play but that idea is clearly a key driver of direct payments and the wider personalisation agenda. Integral to that agenda is the ability of service users to make informed choices – and act upon them.

Much work has been done - backed by statutory instruments - to ensure those eligible are informed of their right to follow the direct payments route.  Take-up has increased as a consequence.

But just how far does the commitment to informed choice go? Is the commitment to promoting the independent living ethos being undermined by budgetary restraints?  We are all familiar with the issues raised by eligibility criteria under the Fair Access to Care Services regime which conjures up the tabloid-friendly “postcode lottery” of provision. But is the concept of independent living being undermined after a care package has been agreed?

This question is not theoretical. Direct payments empower, without question. But that power may be limited when it comes to a purchasing decision which could have far–reaching consequences. As you will know our Independent Living Insurance  offers two levels of cover, a Basic policy which is broadly in line with an employer’s statutory obligations and a Full policy which also includes around-the-clock access to a specialist employment law advice line and protection again employment tribunal awards. The latter, costs a little more than £1 a week extra.

 Now you might think that a reasonable price for access to advice which can not only resolve employment disputes between a disabled person and their personal assistant, but prevent them happening or escalating. We thought so which is why we launched this pioneering cover.  Most local authorities do agree, but a minority are resistant, some bluntly so. A letter sent to recipients of direct payments by one authority could not have been more to the point: “We will not be providing funding for the enhanced policy” it baldly stated.  Thinking this through, does that dictum really square with the promotion of independent living?

More, is it sensible? We are already seeing many personal assistants taking their employers  to tribunal. These  are often vulnerable individuals who, almost without exception, are unaware of the onerous legal responsibilities they assumed as a result of becoming an employer. Social workers and advisers are equally not equipped to advise them; it’s not their area of expertise.

So why are care users in some areas being denied the opportunity to make an informed choice about the insurance which best suits their needs? Is it really about one pound and 11 pence a week? I sincerely hope not because on all kinds of levels that’s wrong. If it’s not a matter of conscience or a commitment to promoting independent living, then it’s a financial one. Initial legal costs before a case reaches court can easily top £1,000. From there the sky’s the limit when it comes to, say, race discrimination where awards are uncapped. Who’s going to pick up that tab – a vulnerable care user or a hard-pressed local authority?

What do you think? Share your thoughts with Peter by emailing him.

Peter Smallridge is a former director of social services and current chair of Kent and Medway NHS & Social Care Partnership Trust. His extensive experience also includes chairing West Kent Health Authority, and Ashford Primary Care Trust, being a trustee and board member of the British Red Cross and a trustee of The Henry Smith Charity. He is a non-executive director of Fish Insurance.

In the first of a series of blogs Peter Smallridge CBE, a former director of social services, addresses the responsibilities social workers must address as the personalisation agenda progresses.

A question of responsibility

The drive to ensure the personalisation of social services for adults is undoubtedly laudable, re-focusing the emphasis of practice within social care to support the ethos of independent living. Of course let’s be honest, there are financial imperatives at work too but that should not undermine the fundamentally positive changes that reform is bringing.

That’s not to say there are not issues to be addressed. This is a huge change in direction, one requiring seismic cultural and systemic transformations.  With the take-up of Direct Payments we are seeing some strains showing. It’s hardly surprising given, for example, that employed care workers (lone workers) are not being required to register  with anyone. Moreover social workers  are being thrown into uncharted waters,  working with people who have gone from being passive receivers of care to active commissioners of it -  people who overnight become employers with all the responsibilities that brings.  Does this mean that social workers (or advocates) should also become employment law specialists overnight?

This is just the opening question. What if a client is taken to a tribunal? What level of support, if any, is a social worker expected or able to give? To whom does the client turn? Do they face the court alone?  What if they then lose a tribunal and face a hefty financial penalty? Who funds their care in future?

In terms of job descriptions and the law, responsibility is pretty clearly defined. But what of moral responsibility?  As a former director of social services I’m acutely aware that the overwhelming majority of social workers bend over backwards to provide a fully rounded service to their clients.  If the system is not joined up they cannot do so.

This is not just a theoretical dilemma. We are already seeing many direct payment recipients facing tribunals. Just one recent example saw a service user in the north of England facing a race discrimination claim. If she had lost then the financial penalty is unlimited. It could have been disastrous. Thankfully, with assistance from the legal advisers provided as standard with our full cover Independent Living Employment Protection policy, that client was able to demonstrate that the allegation was baseless. Case dismissed.

But not all stories have such happy outcomes. I’m aware of another in which the service user sacked a PA who fell pregnant and faced a sex discrimination tribunal.  The case was lost and the penalty a massive £25,000 award.

It is possible to make the system more joined up by giving service users access to legal advice, as our full cover policy does. Doing so can also help minimise the risk of social workers facing that moral dilemma and the feeling that a systemic void is undermining their good work. Now, more than ever, we need to value our social workers and ensure that the system works in their professional interests and, most importantly, meets the needs of their clients.

What do you think? Share your thoughts with Peter by emailing him.

Peter Smallridge CBE is a former director of social services and current chair of Kent and Medway NHS & Social Care Partnership Trust. His extensive experience also includes chairing West Kent Health Authority and Ashford Primary Care Trust, being a trustee and board member of the British Red Cross and a trustee of the Henry Smith Charity. He is a non-executive director of Fish Insurance.

Disability specialist Fish Insurance is offering the UK's 2.3 million Blue Badge holders discounts of up to 35 per cent on car insurance compared to premiums offered by many general insurers and brokers. The firm, which with over 65,000 disabled policyholders is one of the UK's biggest disability insurance firms, says it can offer such hefty discounts because of its specialist knowledge, policies and relationships with underwriters. "The large general insurers chase volume using something of a blunt stick, especially if they're internet led where quoting systems may require simple yes or no answers. For disabled drivers that can mean uncompetitive premiums and cover which may not be ideally suited to their needs," commented sales and marketing director Warren Dickson. "For example many disabled drivers will adapt their vehicle in line with their disability or may drive Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles and these may simply be classified as a modified vehicle. But our experience suggests that vehicles adapted for disabilities are actually less likely to be stolen and that disabled drivers are a safer risk generally and this is reflected in our premiums." The discounted rates are offered to all Blue Badge holders or people who drive for them whether the vehicle is modified or not. The ability to have a carer named as the main driver on a disabled person's policy is another complication which general insurers, particularly those trading on the internet, may struggle with. As well as discounted premiums Fish's motor insurance offers new for old cover, courtesy car or mobility allowance, £500 wheelchair in transit protection and £200 for personal effects Further details, including a policy summary, are available to view or download by

or call free on 0500 432 141.