In Control Conversion of in-house services project
A Menu Based Approach to Pricing – a Test on Day
Services
Introduction
In larger extra care schemes for older people there have been some experiments in
offering residents the chance to individually tailor services by choosing from a costed
‘menu’. Appendix 1 gives an example.
The idea considered here is whether a similar approach to the pricing and marketing
of other in house, support and social care services might also have some merit?
In discussion with local authorities taking part in the conversion of in-house services
project,, it was felt that a useful area to at least initially explore this idea was day
services.
Modernising day services puts “a strong emphasis on individual needs, flexibility and
the active involvement of service users1”. This would seem to be exactly what some
of the experiments with extra care services achieve:


Individuals select what services they want so the service is developed by
the person – active, direct involvement to meet personal needs as
determined by the individual
It can be very flexible varying on a daily, weekly or monthly basis
according to needs and preferences
As far as pricing is concerned, this is transparent for users. The basis of charging does
vary according to the nature of the activity so it allows for a more sophisticated
pricing structure than for example, simply one set hourly rate for support. The pricing
however remains simple. It also allows prices to reflect different cost levels associated
with each activity.
Test on day services in Leeds
In extending day services beyond dependence on traditional building based day
centres, a wider range of individual or small group activities are envisaged. For people
with learning disabilities and mental health problems there is also a focus on
employment and work opportunities as well as education.
Leeds City Council currently runs 33 traditional day centres which are used by a
variety of groups, in particular:


1
Older people
People with learning disabilities
A Life in the Day, Campaigns Team, Mencap, February 2002.
-1-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project


People with mental health problems
People with physical or sensory impairments
It was agreed that as the authority is in the process of modernising services moving to
more community based activities and it is anticipated eventually closing these day
centres, it would be most useful to focus on these newer forms of modern day service
that do not depend on presence in a designated centre.
Traditional charges
Under different names, including resources centres, activity centres, adult learning
centres, social activity centres, day services involve building based activities, in a
segregated environment. For carer’s day centres have offered (relatively cheap)
respite care. For those who use day centres they are a place where various activities
take place. They may fulfil a social, rehabilitation, education or work function. The
centres vary in scale, focus and scope.
The traditional pricing structure in relation to older people’s centres has however
typically been:




A modest charge for 5 – 6 hours presence. This may be free, £1.50, £3.50
or some other figure up to around £10
Cost of meals, £1 – £2.50
Cost of transport, £1 - £2.50
Charges, where levied, will normally be subject to financial assessment of
ability to pay under FACS. Users placed in permanent care for example,
are very unlikely to have sufficient resources to make a contribution under
non-residential charges
Charges historically do not necessarily bear much relation to actual cost. In many
local authorities, transport costs account for a substantial amount (up to 25%) of the
day services budget. A common criticism of the larger day centre model is the time
spent (and cost to the authority) of travelling to and from the day centre and possibly
to and from an activity originating at a day centre.
Community based provision
Local authorities have developed day services based on accessing ordinary facilities in
the locality. Typically these are things like shopping, going to a gym or leisure centre,
swimming, the library, attending some form of education or occasionally, for some
groups other than older people, employment.
There are also examples of people, usually in small groups of 2 or 3, going to
someone’s house (often a volunteer) for the day or part of a day.
Community based services are indicative of the ‘direction of travel’, however
criticisms include:
-2-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project




Cost of using community facilities
Where cost is not an issue, the activity, if repeated to excess may not be
very ‘meaningful’ e.g. going round the shops, when the individual
concerned cannot afford to buy anything
May not operate every day
May not offer effective respite
As the Mencap report on day opportunities noted (op cit):
“The premature closure of day centres before viable alternatives are in place is
mirrored by concerns that some local authorities are increasingly trying to offer
services ‘on the cheap’. Typical practices are, in fact, mass group outings and people
spending hours each week on college courses with no perceptible aim”.
Modern day services
The principles of modern day services are broadly agreed. They derive from national
policy leads such as ‘Valuing People’ (DH, 2001), ‘Independence, well-being and
choice’ (DH, 2001) and ‘From segregation to inclusion: commissioning guidance on
day services for people with mental health problems’ (DH, 2006) and are:







Focus on the individual with some real choice; tailored support where
necessary
A wider range of activities which are meaningful
A focus on inclusive activities based in the community
A full service covering at least five days of the week; ideally evening and
weekends as well
A service that meets the needs of both the individual and, where relevant,
carers
Accessible services that should meet the needs of diverse groups
Be based on partnership between Adult Social Care and local agencies
To varying degrees, to some extent influenced by the particular user group, there is
also emphasis on:




User involvement and user led services
Recovery, rehabilitation or health
Reducing social isolation
Personal or skills development
In concrete terms the type of service to be offered to individuals typically looks like
that summarised in the box below taken from a service specification.
-3-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
The contractor will offer:
 Individually designed and structured activities – education, sport and fitness,
leisure, art, design, crafts and supported volunteering etc – which support people
to connect with mainstream community activities
 Up to date advice and information, on education, sports, leisure and the arts
activities with the local community
 In partnership with educational institutes, access and support into further
education courses in-house and externally, on a one to one or group basis
 Support to access and sustain supported volunteering
 A place to meet people, incorporating social aspects, promoting confidence
building, in a relaxed friendly environment
 The opportunity to acquire recognised qualifications in administration,
Information Technology and E-commerce
 Particular activities and opportunities for currently under-represented groups e.g.
women, people from black and minority ethnic communities
 The opportunity to socialise with the support of a peer group
 The opportunity to access paid work when ready, through the supported
employment services
 Regular individual reviews to ensure individual needs and aspirations are being
met
Mental Health Work and Day Services, Community specification, The Eastern Surrey Partnership, 2006
Principles of extra care approach
The example cited of extra care (Appendix 1) illustrates the menu approach:



A list – the ‘menu’ of personal support and related housing services that a
resident might want - is created
The options are grouped in a way that reflects the nature of the service
Each group then is priced – most charged by time but not necessarily or
solely.
There is an on-going debate about how to fit Personal Budgets into extra care where a
basic building block of services has been a degree of common, shared services;
buildings, facilities, support and care. The best schemes are argued to be those that
integrate housing, care and support so from the individual residents perspective it is
one ‘seamless’ and flexible service. A key contribution to this debate noted:
“Cost transparency
Previous research evaluating the costs and benefits of extra care has been unable to
disaggregate costs of all the complex funding systems and unit costs to the level of the
individual, beyond basic data on rents and service charge. How can costs be made
more transparent at an individual level? What will the impact be on individualised
contracts and accounting for services? ”2
2
Building Choices; Personal budgets and older people’s housing, Housing 21, 2007.
-4-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
The ‘menu’ approach delivers a degree of transparency for the resident. It seems
likely that further refinement in extra care will be to set:


A core charge which recovers costs of facilities and services which are
necessarily shared and where it is clearly economic or effective for this to
continue
Individual charges as per the menu – but extended beyond the example in
the Appendix
Individual Budget Pilots – Lessons
An analysis of the costs of the support plus of 285 people in the Individual Budget
(IB) pilot gives an initial picture of how money maybe spent in the future3. This
includes spending on day opportunities.
The packages of support varied greatly from only £72 to £165,000 resulting in some
difficulty in describing the typical or ‘average’ position. Thus the mean IB was
£11,760 (total cost divided by number of packages) but the median – the package for
the middle person in the list - was only £6580.
Taking the ‘mean’ as our measurement of the norm costs this varied significantly
between groups as would be expected:
Table 1 Average cost of IB
Mean Costs (£s)
People with learning disabilities
People with physical disabilities
People with mental health problems
Older people
18,610
11,150
5,530
7,860
About 6 in every 10 people used their IB to buy traditional services although they
spent proportionately less of their funds on them; 44%. So the majority of the money
was not spent on the usual mainstream services but something different.
In terms of day opportunities ‘menu’ and how people used their IB in the pilot the list
included:
Employment and occupation
 Going out: meals/ pub/ day trips/ cinema etc.
 Classes/ arts and crafts
 Gym membership/ swimming
 Computer maintenance/ internet access/ games
 Admission fees for service user and PA
Courses and computer equipment
 Photography course
3
Unit costs of health and social care, Lesley Curtis (ed), PSSRU, 2008
-5-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project




Computer/ laptop
IT course
Hygiene training
Driving lessons
Hobby
 Hobby related e.g. art materials, music keyboard, bikes, camera, football tickets,
snooker cue
Day services – the Leeds context
Leeds City Council operates a significant level of traditional in-house day service
provision, predominantly day centres, for a range of groups. The scale of the current
operation, in terms of buildings based day services is summarised below.




Older people – 20 day services including 4 centres that specialise in
provision for people with dementia and 2 that offer some specialist
provision for people with dementia.
People with learning disabilities – 8 day services.
People with mental health problems – 3 day services.
People with physical or sensory impairments – 2 day services.
Leeds has undertaken work to identify and set prices for its in-house day services.
This has been based on identifying the current unit prices for each day service (based
on 2009/10 expenditure divided by 2008/09 activity, excluding transport costs, meal
costs and any recharges). The calculated unit costs are expressed as a price per day.
The unit costs vary considerably between different services because of variations in
staffing levels and client attendance. The unit cost (price per day) variations are
summarised below.





Older people (mainstream day centres) - £29 - £51
Older people (dementia day centres) - £49 - £72
People with learning disabilities – £31 - £56
People with mental health problems – £24 - £26
People with physical or sensory impairments – £63 - £70
In order to be in a position for individuals who take up a personal budget to be able to
‘purchase’ a Leeds CC in-house day service, a set of prices has been agreed for each
category of current buildings-based day services. Leeds has considered using three
methods of identifying prices for day services; a daily price using the Sheffield
pricing model (analysed as part of this work for iN Control Partnerships), data from
the PSSRU and the existing method of dividing the budget for a service by the activity
to produce a price per day. The existing pricing method has been used as an interim
approach to setting prices for current day services with the proviso that these prices
can be changed in response to feedback from clients and in the light of this work for
iN Control Partnerships.
At the current time the following prices per day will apply for in-house day services:

Older people (mainstream) - £43.19
-6-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project




Older people (dementia) - £51
People with learning disabilities – £43.45
People with mental health problems – £28.24
People with physical or sensory impairments – £66.53
Although these prices have been agreed by Leeds CC Departmental Management
Team Transformation Board, it is in full knowledge of the limitations of this approach
and that this is, in effect, pricing services as they currently operate rather than an
approach to pricing a different ‘menu-based’ approach to the delivery of day services
and supports.
To this end Leeds sees the need to invest in the development of a new infrastructure
for day opportunities. For example, in May (2009) it held a market engagement
exercise with a variety of ‘third sector’ agencies that provide services for people with
learning disabilities intended to increase the range of activities on offer and possibly
extend the range of organisations involved. It is supporting this work with £0.8m of
revenue funding and £2.1m of capital funding over 3 years. The intention is that third
sector organisations will bid for this funding, as single organisations or in consortia,
to develop and run new and innovate types of ‘day services’ that extend opportunities
for people with learning disabilities.
One intention of this capacity building work is to encourage third sector organisations
to develop an attractive range of day opportunities which in the future people with
learning disabilities may choose to purchase from their personal budget allocations. It
may also have the effect of generating a ‘menu’ of options that may either compete
with or complement existing in-house day service provision.
In the longer term, Leeds also plans to open three new, large activity and leisure
centres that can incorporate day service type work.
Towards a menu-based approach in Leeds
In order to test out the principles and ideas behind developing a ‘menu based’
approach to day services we undertook a brief series of meetings and conversations
with day centre staff/managers (of older people’s services), staff involved in early
implementation of personal budgets, Leeds Centre for Independent Living,
adult/family placement staff, and social care finance staff, as well as attending the
market engagement event for developing day opportunities for people with learning
disabilities. The purpose of these meetings was to test out the ideas and principles of a
‘menu based’ approach to developing in-house day services but also the more difficult
issue of how to implement this approach in practice.
There is widespread support for the ideas set out earlier for both modern day services
and developing a ‘menu based’ approach that offers a choice of possible activities to
individuals with a personal budget which are not necessarily based on using
traditional buildings-based day services. However there were also views expressed
that there is a continuing role for some buildings-based services, either as a ‘base’ for
a wider range of activities, many of them outside the day centre with ‘outreach’
support, and for retaining specialised day centres for people with complex needs such
as dementia.
-7-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
Given that the policy of modernising day services is not a new one, it is not
unexpected that there is support and acceptance for changing the way that in-house
day services operate to make them relevant, attractive and 'purchasable' by individuals
with a personal budget. The issue then is the process for making a change from a
traditional day centre model to a menu-based approach to day opportunities. Set out
below are the possible steps to move from the traditional buildings based model of
day services with a set of unit prices, to a ‘menu based’ approach to the service offer
and pricing. This is set out in four stages:




Generating a menu – Its application to modern day services
Refining the menu for different in house day services
Link to the self assessment and resource allocation systems
Establish the costs and pricing of the menu
Generating a Menu - Application to modern day services
Taking the approach from extra care housing, a possible grouping and list of activities
making up the menu and that could be the starting point for day services is set out
below. This has been generated through:



Mangers of and staff in day services and also in the early implementer team
Review of a sample of recent literature on modernising day services
Individual Budget Pilots
It is not intended to be a definitive guide only an illustrative start.
Activities
Health services e.g.
Podiatry
Chiropody
Dentistry
Optician
Participation in sport and games e.g.
Swimming
Team games – football etc
Tennis
Badminton
Snooker/ billiards
Fishing
Martial arts
Yoga
Board games and cards
Social and leisure activities e.g.
Outings/ visits – gardens, parks, stately
homes, seaside
Theatre/ cinema visits
Physiotherapy
Psychotherapy
Speech Therapy
Re-ablement
Archery
Walking/ rambling
Bowls
Climbing
Canoeing
Keep fit
Music and movement
Darts and pub games
Sailing
Eating out/ going to café or pub
Creative writing/ poetry
-8-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
Cooking
Computer usage/ IT
Dancing
Music
Drama
Reminiscence
Driving
Activities
Gardening
Flower arranging
Watching sport
Arts and crafts
Shopping
Library
Talks
Photography
Complementary medicine/ self care e.g.
Aromatherapy
Manicure
Advice and information e.g.
Benefits
Managing money
services
Hairdressing
Social skills
Activities
Education
Employment
“At Home” day service
This analysis does not extend into employment or college education, but there is a link
in that colleges might for some individuals/ groups play a bigger role in gaining
employment while employment might become more diverse with, for example, new
social enterprises being established. Both places of work and education can
potentially provide space for formal or informal social activities such as a café.
We have used the term ‘outreach support’ to describe the role of helping individuals
(or small groups) access or undertake an activity. There are a range of possible new
roles like employment officer, community managers, lead person for travel training
etc4.
A pricing decision (covered below) is whether to:



Incorporate these costs in the unit cost of the ‘outreach support’ or
Fund them centrally at no cost
Find a way of directly charging as an identified service
Refining the menu based offer for different in house day services
Once a broad menu of activities has been developed the next stage is to refine or
‘package’ this into a series of options that are relevant to specific individuals or
groups of individuals who will receive personal budgets. This is likely to involve
market research with targeted current clients of in-house day services and some
See for example “The strategic context for the modernisation of day services for people with learning
disabilities and physical disabilities in Sandwell”, Sandwell MBC, 2008
4
-9-
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
potential customers to refine the menu based approach so that a menu-based offer of
‘day opportunities’ is developed:


That is relevant to people with different needs and requirements, e.g. the menu
may need to differ between the offer to older people and people with learning
disabilities.
That differentiates between the activities that are offered within existing day
centre buildings and those that are offered outside of traditional day centres
For example, the work that Leeds is doing in relation to modernising day services for
people with learning disabilities through engagement with the third sector and
investing additional revenue and capital funding over the next three years, is based on
an initial three ‘tier’ model of day supports and opportunities (referred to as
signposting/enablement/on-going support) which in effect reflects a menu based
approach to developing day services.
Another local authority that has been implementing SDS since the first In Control
pilot sites, West Sussex, has used this type of approach to develop a day service offer
for in-house services based on three options or ‘bands’. Their model is a ‘partial’
menu in that the offer in the form of bandings is based on the level of staff hours that
will be provided to support individuals to access a range of buildings based and
community based activities.
Link to the self assessment and resource allocation systems
The self assessment questionnaire (SAQ) and resource allocation system (RAS)
determine the level of personal budget allocations made to individuals and therefore
their ‘purchasing power’ when deciding how to spend their budget. Any provider of
services, including an in-house provider, needs to understand how the SAQ and RAS
that have been adopted will be likely to allocate funding to individuals and at what
level.
In practice this means that there is little point in developing a menu of activities that
might be attractive but will be too costly to provide compared with the typical level of
personal budget allocation for a particular group of people. For example, through a
desk top exercise undertaken by Leeds CC to assess the overall financial impact of
implementing SDS for a sample of current social care clients, the average RAS was
£14,729.
The purpose of doing this is to better understand the likely potential funding that is
available through individuals taking up personal budgets. The evidence for how
individual’s will spend their personal budget allocations in practice comes in part
from the evaluations of the individual budget pilots but will also come from the Early
Implementer Team working directly with individuals in Leeds receiving personal
budgets.
It is suggested that this type of reality check against the adopted SAQ and RAS is
undertaken whilst also refining a potential menu of activities with a sample of current
and future clients.
- 10 -
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
Establish the costs and pricing of the menu
Once a menu of activities has been refined for different in-house day services, the
proposed menu needs to be costed, i.e. the actual costs of delivery need to be
established. This will require refining the current unit costing approach to identify the
actual cost of delivery, including overheads as well as the direct cost of provision.
For a menu-based model a more relevant approach is to build up cost from
activities/work done:
Direct + indirect cost (identified overhead allocation) = Cost of defined
service;
divided by chargeable unit (activity/ies) = Unit cost
An issue to resolve is how to cost the different components of a proposed menu of
activities. Depending on the nature of the menu based activities being offered the
costing options could include:



Define a core set of activities as part of the menu to be covered by the unit
cost. Additional activities are then part of a fixed ‘banded’ menu of options
with each having an associated cost.
Define a core set of activities as part of the menu to be covered by the unit
cost. Additional activities (such as those listed within the sport, social and
leisure activities menus above) to be costed on the basis of the direct cost of
activity/equipment (shared where relevant) and outreach support to attend at
£xx per hour (shared between group where relevant/ mutually acceptable)
A fully itemised menu of activities costed on the basis of the direct cost of
activity/equipment (shared where relevant) and outreach support to attend at
£xx per hour (shared between group where relevant/ mutually acceptable).
The issue of cost not being the same as price has been considered as part of the work
to develop a congregate services costing tool so is not repeated here. However, the
steps proposed above, of refining a menu based approach based on market research
and reality checking against the adopted SAQ and RAS, are intended to identify a
menu of activities that is sufficiently attractive to be purchased by individuals with
personal budgets. An essential step for achieving this in reality is that the actual full
costs of delivery can be met by the prices charged (or that a decision is taken to
subsidise some of the indirect costs of delivery).
Conversely this approach may identify that it is not commercially viable to remodel
in-house day services to provide a menu of activities that are sufficiently attractive to
individuals with personal budgets at prices that can cover the full costs of delivery.
The outcome of this approach should be:


A menu of potential activities and day opportunities that is targeted, where
necessary, at specific individuals/groups of individuals.
A set of clear prices that are attached to the menu, or elements of the menu,
that reflect the ability and willingness to pay on the part of potential
customers and reflect the costs of delivery.
- 11 -
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
This approach to developing day services in the context of personal budgets presents
further issues for an in-house service provider to consider, which are beyond the
scope of this work, for example establishing an overall business strategy for in-house
day services including a marketing plan.
Pricing and Costing Issues - Non-Activity Costs
This exercise based on modern day services has found there may be a range of
additional indirect costs that a local authority may have to consider. These may in turn
be:



Met by the local authority in part or whole as a subsidy to the day service
Considered as part of the authorities overall work, another service or statutory
function and not allocated to day services specifically but elsewhere. This may in
turn possibly increase costs of another activity or function.
Recovered in the pricing presumably by adding the calculated margin to the
outreach worker rate
The kinds of indirect costs identified include:











Personal planning
Consultation with carers and individuals and then feeding back to those
consulted on results
Teaching or developing skills to go out and access services outside a day centre
including travelling
“Some of us want assistance to teach us skills we need to go out, some of us may
need individual assistance all the time…”
Risk assessment in using day services and a rescue plan plus resources to
implement “We need to plan activities we do and to have a plan for what to do if
something goes wrong”
Offer services at weekends and evenings – with implications for staffing levels
and pay rates – “…sometimes it is too early to finish at 10 pm if we are out
enjoying ourselves”
Offering services 365 days a year “Less long closures as people find these really
disruptive”
Improved communication using a variety of media to individuals and carers
Independent advocacy “It would be helpful for an independent advocate to be
based in each day service”
Investment in joint working process
A lead worker(s) to steer modernisation in key opportunities and subsequently
develop activities and the market
Process and infrastructure to review, audit, continually improve day
opportunities
Note: Quotes extracted from modernisation of day service reviews by local authorities such as
The list is indicative and not exhaustive.
- 12 -
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
Does the menu approach have merit?
The approach of identifying, grouping and then trying to price different categories of
day service is in essence obvious, simple and straightforward. It reflects the desire to
extend opportunities for older and disabled people and make more use of ‘ordinary’
facilities. The exercise may help to prompt thought about more possibilities.
The pricing of a menu based approach needs careful consideration. First, the different
groups who may use day services may not generally need the same kind of ‘outreach
support’. An older person may be perfectly capable of participating in a wide range of
activities with no support at all in a way many people with learning disabilities could
not. Second, there are substantial individual differences to cater for in the level and
nature of help needed to participate in an activity. Third, how the support required by
the person is delivered can also be very varied. It would be a mistake to assume even
those who need some support need the paid ‘outreach support’ staff. An example of
different ways of assisting people to travel to day opportunities illustrates this.
It is likely that confining an individual’s activity to those supported by congregate
travel arrangements will be limiting.
The following examples of how some people have addressed making travel
arrangements individualised may be useful:






Investing time in ‘travel training’ to enable people to independently use public
transport
Developing individual travel plans with photographs of landmarks on the route
and where to get off
Identify possible ‘travel buddies’, another passenger who gets on at the same
stop as the individual and who could offer a gentle reminder when it is time to
get off
Exploring opportunities for car sharing with co-workers, co-learners, etc.
Negotiating travel expenses, for taxis, as part of someone’s employment or
volunteering package
Is the activity available more locally to the person’s home?
Source: Day services modernisation toolkit, Part 2, B. Love et al, NDT, 2003
The idea of a costed menu, albeit in the example still largely hours x delivery rate, can
begin to break away from thinking in ‘hours’ to thinking instead of ‘cost’ to the
individual; particularly if some of the alternatives ways of procuring a service are
incorporated. The need to think of real cost was identified in the evaluation of the IB
Pilot Programme5.
“I kept saying ‘Stop looking at it in hours ‘cos it don’t mean nowt to me, I want
money, I want to see what there is to spend’”
(Carer of a person with a learning disability).
5
Evaluation of the IB pilot programme, C Glendunny et al. Social Policy Research Unit, University of
York, 2008
- 13 -
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
The evaluation observed in many cases, care co-ordinators suggested which care
agency a service user should use, typically the agency that the user was currently
with, nevertheless some users took it upon themselves to ring around different
agencies and ask for prices:
“I had said to (support planner) ‘Well, God, that’s not very much left to have a
gardener’ and she said ‘Well, that’s how it’s been worked out’. But of course then I
realised and appreciated that… the company I’d been put into, the agency, was about
the dearest there is in (council district)… so I thought, right, well I can do this
cheaper myself so… I went to a smaller, cheaper and far superior agency”
(Older person).
- 14 -
In Control Conversion of in-house services project
Appendix 1 – Summary of Core Costs
Summary of the core cost of living at Denham Garden Village
Service
Domestic help
and support
What you receive

As required
£10 per hour
Assistance with mobility
Help to get in and out of
bed
Help with toileting,
washing and bathing
Food preparation and help
with eating and drinking
Assistance with
medication
Assistance with personal
hygiene
As required
£10 per hour
The handy person service is
available to help with jobs around
the house, for example hanging
pictures, decoration or facilitating
other individual works
As required
£15 plus VAT
per hour
Budgeted
annually in
consultation
with residents
Approximately
£85 per
calendar month









Handy person
Service Charge
Price
Cleaning
Laundry/ironing
Shopping
Collecting prescriptions
Preparing light meals
Home valet service
(spring cleaning)
Oven cleaning
Help with reading/writing
letters
Paying bills
Facilitating contact with
family and friends
Escort to and from social
events, appointments etc







Personal care
Frequency






24 hour emergency
support
Dedicated customer
services team
Enjoyment of well kept
grounds and communal
facilities
Laundry facilities
Window cleaning
CCTV security
- 15 -
In Control Conversion of in-house services project





Monitored emergency,
burglar and smoke alarm
Buildings insurance
Access to satellite TV
Use of health and fitness
centre
Village “golf buggy”
transportation
Repairs and
maintenance fund
Cyclical works (e.g. external redecorations), reactive repairs and
technical inspections (e.g. gas
boiler servicing)
Budgeted
annually in
consultation
with residents
Approximately
£28 per
calendar month
Sinking fund
Major property related repairs,
replacements, renewals and
improvements. Includes all works
to roofs, windows, buildings
structure, gas boiler etc
Deferred cost
payable on resale or re-let
Calculated as
0.25% of
purchase price
plus Retail
Price Index
(inflation) for
each year of
occupation
Annual invoice
£150 per
annum
Ground rent
With thanks to Anchor Trust – edited extract from published purchasers information pack.
- 16 -