Page 1 of 1

Challenging the norm!

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:05 pm
by kngc
Right, I want to get opinions on this scenario from a legal perspective (as people understand it), from a moral perspective and from a personal feeling on the subject perspective!

A smoker is at risk from fire, burns etc. due to physical inability to hold the cigarette or wears emollient creams affecting their 'recreational' activity.
The smoker is in a care home but is not permitted to smoke within the property, only outside.
In order to ensure the safety of the smoker a smoking bib needs to be provided and in extreme cases a member of staff to monitor the smoker or even a portable misting system due to the level of risk of fire.

The question is, who pays for the safety equipment (assuming that the smoker has the financial means)? Is it the care home or the smoker and why?

Sorry but this jumped in my head a while back and I want to know others thoughts on this as it is similar for other activities that people chose to partake in, even contrary to advice given by carers!


Re: Challenging the norm!

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:30 am
by Waterbaby
Bump ./thumbsup..


Re: Challenging the norm!

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:14 pm
by LittleNell83
I believe that it would be up to the care home, as they hold the duty of care to the resident, but also to other residents. This is backed up by ... a-10368861 ... r-13583473 ... e-1.547815


Re: Challenging the norm!

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:08 am
by kngc
The duty of care in not disputed but the question is more around the cost of the control measures! Does the resident bear the cost or the organisation.

To clarify, our organisation pays for these but it does beg the question around recreation and alike when it comes to paying for protection. If a resident chose to cycle, they would be required to purchase their own protective equipment as a general rule, why is smoking any different? or better still should it be / is it any different?

Just seeking peoples opinions!!



Re: Challenging the norm!

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:58 am
by witsd
It's different because of the threat to other residents and the property. If your cyclist fell off their bike and caved their head in, no-one else would be affected, and unless they went through a window, neither would the building!

Ultimately, I would imagine that it comes down to the tenancy agreement. If it's not specified (which it probably won't be), then I suspect that there would be no means of forcing the tenant to pay, and the only other option would be to look at eviction, which would probably be a long, arduous and unpleasant process.

Probably simpler (and ultimately cheaper) to pay for it themselves.

Re: Challenging the norm!

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:53 pm
by kngc
Thanks both .... still an interesting one from my view but all in all I guess we will never know unless it was challenged following a conviction.

Looks like we will continue to foot the bill then :lol: