Daughter took £95,000 that should have paid for sick dad's care

Janice Knight who will have to repay £95,000.

Janice Knight who will have to repay £95,000.

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Court Reporter

IT was money that should have gone towards the care of her sick father.

Instead Janice Knight, 65, betrayed her family’s trust by pocketing nearly £95,000 from her dad’s pension payments, allowances and the proceeds from the sale of his home.

She spent the cash paying off a mortgage on her second home, servicing credit card debts and buying a second hand car.

Her lies were only uncovered when cheques she had written to the care home where her father lived bounced.

Now she faces having to sell her home and car to pay back the money after admitting in court to abusing a position of trust and fraud.

Southampton Crown Court heard that Knight’s father William Harris began suffering from dementia in 2009, when he was in his 80s.

He moved in with mum-of-two Knight but shortly afterwards she contacted her three sisters and they agreed he should go into a care home because his condition had worsened. He went into Engleburn Care Home in Milford Road, Barton on Sea, in July 2009 and lived there until his death in 2012.

Prosecutor Tim Moores said it was arranged for his pension and other allowances to be paid into Knight’s account.

She received more than £35,000 with the expectation it would go towards paying for provisions, trips and other expenses at the home but instead it was absorbed into her account and spending, the court was told.

Knight also made regular withdrawals of her father’s pension credits paid into a post office account, obtaining in excess of £8,000 which she kept.

In 2010 she was granted power of attorney for her father and received more than £50,000 from the sale of his home in Dunstable, Bedfordshire.

Knight told one sister she had been paying the care home to allay her suspicions, the court heard. In reality, said Mr Moores, she had been transferring money for her own use.

The full extent of her betrayal only emerged at two separate meetings with the care home when she wrote them cheques for £38,000 and £45,000, both of which bounced. Mr Moores told the court that the total sum involved in the case amounted to £94,323.

He said: “None of that sum went to the benefit of her father. It wasn’t fraudulent from the outset but it was carried out over a significant period of time. She has not only breached the trust of her father but also the arrangements she had made with her family."

Knight, of Ridgeway, West Parley, Dorset, admitted abusing her position of trust and making a false representation to the care home. She received a two-year suspended sentence coupled with a 240 hour community work order.

Passing sentence, Judge Peter Ralls QC – who read a letter from one sister imploring him not to jail her – told Knight she had committed “an unpleasant crime” and had taken advantage of her vulnerable father.

As she left the dock, Knight thanked the judge, adding: “I am really sorry.”

However she will return to the court in May when she will face a confiscation hearing brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act which will strip her of assets.

In mitigation, James Newton-Price said Knight paid regular visits to her father and there was no suggestion she had not been concerned about his welfare.

After leaving her holiday park job, her debts grew. She had credit card debts of £50,000 and her second home – a flat in Weymouth – was a constant financial drain. She then started going into her accounts and the funds got mixed up, Mr Newton-Price said.

“There is no indication the money went on high living or treats. It simply dissipated in a year. She clearly should not have done it. She has been putting her head in the sand, clearly hoping for the best, and should have told her sisters of her predicament.

“She realises there is no way out and she will have to repay the money.”

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:37am Mon 24 Feb 14

bigfella777 says...

Wicked b1tch, burn in hell
Wicked b1tch, burn in hell bigfella777
  • Score: -1

11:40am Mon 24 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Wicked b1tch, burn in hell
Bit too much of a soft punishment.

Send her to live in Pompey instead. With a local.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Wicked b1tch, burn in hell[/p][/quote]Bit too much of a soft punishment. Send her to live in Pompey instead. With a local. camerajuan
  • Score: 7

11:45am Mon 24 Feb 14

boilerman says...

In Mitigation she did visit him, well that makes it alright then!
In Mitigation she did visit him, well that makes it alright then! boilerman
  • Score: 5

11:50am Mon 24 Feb 14

SPIKEISLANDTRADER says...

You cant choose your family UNFORTUNATELY , only your friends !! Let s hope her day will come and justice is always sweeter if she gets CONNED herself .... Wish her all the WORST LUCK in the WORLD
You cant choose your family UNFORTUNATELY , only your friends !! Let s hope her day will come and justice is always sweeter if she gets CONNED herself .... Wish her all the WORST LUCK in the WORLD SPIKEISLANDTRADER
  • Score: 10

12:39pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

Lowlife scum who used money for her SICK father to buy herself a CAR? Anyone low enough to steal from family doesn't belong in society
Lowlife scum who used money for her SICK father to buy herself a CAR? Anyone low enough to steal from family doesn't belong in society Mary80
  • Score: 5

12:43pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Lockssmart says...

Scumbag.
Scumbag. Lockssmart
  • Score: 3

12:50pm Mon 24 Feb 14

ToastyTea says...

scum and lame setence to boot.
scum and lame setence to boot. ToastyTea
  • Score: 7

1:05pm Mon 24 Feb 14

waltons11 says...

It wasn't just a car - but her second home!! Most people are grateful to have one home and do not resort to this sort of behaviour. She should go to prison and be stripped of her assets. What a disgraceful person.
It wasn't just a car - but her second home!! Most people are grateful to have one home and do not resort to this sort of behaviour. She should go to prison and be stripped of her assets. What a disgraceful person. waltons11
  • Score: 16

1:35pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Lockssmart says...

Lockssmart wrote:
Scumbag.
-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.
[quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: Scumbag.[/p][/quote]-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it. Lockssmart
  • Score: -19

2:09pm Mon 24 Feb 14

SwedeSaint says...

Lockssmart wrote:
Lockssmart wrote:
Scumbag.
-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.
Always thought you were a cöck - thumbs down confirm that - attention seeker!
[quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: Scumbag.[/p][/quote]-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.[/p][/quote]Always thought you were a cöck - thumbs down confirm that - attention seeker! SwedeSaint
  • Score: 13

2:37pm Mon 24 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

Lockssmart wrote:
Lockssmart wrote:
Scumbag.
-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.
Why? Because some meaningless imaginary internet points weren't awarded to your trite comment? Get over it.
[quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: Scumbag.[/p][/quote]-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.[/p][/quote]Why? Because some meaningless imaginary internet points weren't awarded to your trite comment? Get over it. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 9

2:38pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Lockssmart says...

SwedeSaint wrote:
Lockssmart wrote:
Lockssmart wrote:
Scumbag.
-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.
Always thought you were a cöck - thumbs down confirm that - attention seeker!
So you are scum then. Back in your caravan scumbag.
[quote][p][bold]SwedeSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: Scumbag.[/p][/quote]-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.[/p][/quote]Always thought you were a cöck - thumbs down confirm that - attention seeker![/p][/quote]So you are scum then. Back in your caravan scumbag. Lockssmart
  • Score: -6

2:39pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Lockssmart says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Lockssmart wrote:
Lockssmart wrote:
Scumbag.
-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.
Why? Because some meaningless imaginary internet points weren't awarded to your trite comment? Get over it.
Oh, we've all of a sudden got new ID's. Hiding in your high rise flats?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: Scumbag.[/p][/quote]-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.[/p][/quote]Why? Because some meaningless imaginary internet points weren't awarded to your trite comment? Get over it.[/p][/quote]Oh, we've all of a sudden got new ID's. Hiding in your high rise flats? Lockssmart
  • Score: -6

2:42pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

Lockssmart wrote:
Lockssmart wrote:
Scumbag.
-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.
Trying to dare justify her STEALING from her SICK dad?
[quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: Scumbag.[/p][/quote]-3??? I always thought Southampton people were thick. You lot have just proved it.[/p][/quote]Trying to dare justify her STEALING from her SICK dad? Mary80
  • Score: -2

3:07pm Mon 24 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Some people just can't see beyond their noses. This isn't really about the silly woman who must have known she'd be caught out.
No, this is about how you spend a lifetime accumulating some assets for your children, and then see them vanish in a couple of years via the care home scam/scandal.
I challenge anyone to go into an average care home and feel that it's £50,000 a year well spent. Each resident gets a room the size of a garden shed with cheap, second-hand furniture, the food is from Lidl or Iceland, the staff call them "derlin", or "moy luv", and there is the constant smell of bleach, urine and onions.
Of course there are a few nice places, and the poorly-paid, poorly-paid staff do their best, but take my word for it, the owners drive new Porsches, and live in posh houses.
And before any of you take off on this, I am describing what I have seen with my own eyes, been told about, and have read about regularly in the papers for several years.
The real scum are the landlords of these homes who are robbing every elderly person of their assets.
Ask yourselves this : how much would it cost you to look after your old dad for a year at home? £50,000? Half that? A quarter of that, more like. And if you were looking after 10 old dads, it would not cost anything like10 times what it costs to look after one. Yes, I know there is heating, lighting, wages, maintenance, etc., but it does NOT require a minimum of £50,000 per resident.
The most sensible thing, the most economic thing, where possible, is to look after the elderly at home.

This in no way JUSTIFIES what the lady has done.
But it might EXPLAIN it.
Some people just can't see beyond their noses. This isn't really about the silly woman who must have known she'd be caught out. No, this is about how you spend a lifetime accumulating some assets for your children, and then see them vanish in a couple of years via the care home scam/scandal. I challenge anyone to go into an average care home and feel that it's £50,000 a year well spent. Each resident gets a room the size of a garden shed with cheap, second-hand furniture, the food is from Lidl or Iceland, the staff call them "derlin", or "moy luv", and there is the constant smell of bleach, urine and onions. Of course there are a few nice places, and the poorly-paid, poorly-paid staff do their best, but take my word for it, the owners drive new Porsches, and live in posh houses. And before any of you take off on this, I am describing what I have seen with my own eyes, been told about, and have read about regularly in the papers for several years. The real scum are the landlords of these homes who are robbing every elderly person of their assets. Ask yourselves this : how much would it cost you to look after your old dad for a year at home? £50,000? Half that? A quarter of that, more like. And if you were looking after 10 old dads, it would not cost anything like10 times what it costs to look after one. Yes, I know there is heating, lighting, wages, maintenance, etc., but it does NOT require a minimum of £50,000 per resident. The most sensible thing, the most economic thing, where possible, is to look after the elderly at home. This in no way JUSTIFIES what the lady has done. But it might EXPLAIN it. charrlee
  • Score: 28

3:48pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

Yeah people can downvote my posts ALL BLOODY DAY you all darn well im right. She IS scum nobody with morals would do that to FAMILY no matter what
Yeah people can downvote my posts ALL BLOODY DAY you all darn well im right. She IS scum nobody with morals would do that to FAMILY no matter what Mary80
  • Score: -1

4:05pm Mon 24 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag!

Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.
I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag! Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots. camerajuan
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Mon 24 Feb 14

IMANICEGUY says...

she is only sorry that she got caught,thats what they all say.why are judges so soft with scum like this woman,now she will look for sympathy from people.
she is only sorry that she got caught,thats what they all say.why are judges so soft with scum like this woman,now she will look for sympathy from people. IMANICEGUY
  • Score: -2

6:13pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

camerajuan wrote:
I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag!

Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.
i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag! Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.[/p][/quote]i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her Mary80
  • Score: -5

6:59pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Loveyourcity says...

I always try to look for a positive to the story, but in this case I'm struggling.

Am struggling to see how you could do this to your parents.
I always try to look for a positive to the story, but in this case I'm struggling. Am struggling to see how you could do this to your parents. Loveyourcity
  • Score: 1

7:31pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

charrlee wrote:
Some people just can't see beyond their noses. This isn't really about the silly woman who must have known she'd be caught out.
No, this is about how you spend a lifetime accumulating some assets for your children, and then see them vanish in a couple of years via the care home scam/scandal.
I challenge anyone to go into an average care home and feel that it's £50,000 a year well spent. Each resident gets a room the size of a garden shed with cheap, second-hand furniture, the food is from Lidl or Iceland, the staff call them "derlin", or "moy luv", and there is the constant smell of bleach, urine and onions.
Of course there are a few nice places, and the poorly-paid, poorly-paid staff do their best, but take my word for it, the owners drive new Porsches, and live in posh houses.
And before any of you take off on this, I am describing what I have seen with my own eyes, been told about, and have read about regularly in the papers for several years.
The real scum are the landlords of these homes who are robbing every elderly person of their assets.
Ask yourselves this : how much would it cost you to look after your old dad for a year at home? £50,000? Half that? A quarter of that, more like. And if you were looking after 10 old dads, it would not cost anything like10 times what it costs to look after one. Yes, I know there is heating, lighting, wages, maintenance, etc., but it does NOT require a minimum of £50,000 per resident.
The most sensible thing, the most economic thing, where possible, is to look after the elderly at home.

This in no way JUSTIFIES what the lady has done.
But it might EXPLAIN it.
You sir are totally wrong. Care homes are closing up and down the country at an alarming rate and soon only super-sized national chains will be left. If it is so profitable, why is this happening? My mother has run a small care home for 25 years and despite working 70+ hours (unpaid) a week (at 68 herself) she struggles to break even at the moment.

But if you don't believe me lets look at the numbers. Lets imagine you want to stay in a hotel for 7 days a week. Cheapest hotel is about £40 per night so that's £280 per week. Then imagine that you want 3 hot meals a day with room service - that would be at least another £140 per week. Then lets imagine that you tell the hotel that you are incontinent and need taking to the toilet 10 time as day as well and being cleaned up when accidents happen - how much would they charge for that? Another £200 per week? Then you have to have any the social services, health and safety, police checks, training etc etc etc never mind gargantuan heating bills. So before you know it you are up to £500 per week just to cover your costs.......and for your information Dorset County Council only pay homes £430pw for residential care. Pot of gold it most certainly is not!!!

And as for your point about homes smelling of urine - incontinence is something we are all likely to face in our declining years and unfortunately the smell can be reduced but never eliminated unless you want homes to have hospital style floors and furnishings.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Some people just can't see beyond their noses. This isn't really about the silly woman who must have known she'd be caught out. No, this is about how you spend a lifetime accumulating some assets for your children, and then see them vanish in a couple of years via the care home scam/scandal. I challenge anyone to go into an average care home and feel that it's £50,000 a year well spent. Each resident gets a room the size of a garden shed with cheap, second-hand furniture, the food is from Lidl or Iceland, the staff call them "derlin", or "moy luv", and there is the constant smell of bleach, urine and onions. Of course there are a few nice places, and the poorly-paid, poorly-paid staff do their best, but take my word for it, the owners drive new Porsches, and live in posh houses. And before any of you take off on this, I am describing what I have seen with my own eyes, been told about, and have read about regularly in the papers for several years. The real scum are the landlords of these homes who are robbing every elderly person of their assets. Ask yourselves this : how much would it cost you to look after your old dad for a year at home? £50,000? Half that? A quarter of that, more like. And if you were looking after 10 old dads, it would not cost anything like10 times what it costs to look after one. Yes, I know there is heating, lighting, wages, maintenance, etc., but it does NOT require a minimum of £50,000 per resident. The most sensible thing, the most economic thing, where possible, is to look after the elderly at home. This in no way JUSTIFIES what the lady has done. But it might EXPLAIN it.[/p][/quote]You sir are totally wrong. Care homes are closing up and down the country at an alarming rate and soon only super-sized national chains will be left. If it is so profitable, why is this happening? My mother has run a small care home for 25 years and despite working 70+ hours (unpaid) a week (at 68 herself) she struggles to break even at the moment. But if you don't believe me lets look at the numbers. Lets imagine you want to stay in a hotel for 7 days a week. Cheapest hotel is about £40 per night so that's £280 per week. Then imagine that you want 3 hot meals a day with room service - that would be at least another £140 per week. Then lets imagine that you tell the hotel that you are incontinent and need taking to the toilet 10 time as day as well and being cleaned up when accidents happen - how much would they charge for that? Another £200 per week? Then you have to have any the social services, health and safety, police checks, training etc etc etc never mind gargantuan heating bills. So before you know it you are up to £500 per week just to cover your costs.......and for your information Dorset County Council only pay homes £430pw for residential care. Pot of gold it most certainly is not!!! And as for your point about homes smelling of urine - incontinence is something we are all likely to face in our declining years and unfortunately the smell can be reduced but never eliminated unless you want homes to have hospital style floors and furnishings. Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 1

7:53pm Mon 24 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Mary80 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag!

Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.
i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her
Who has condoned her actions, Mary? Who? Where does anyone suggest that Janice Knight was right, or excuse what she has done?

Why do we have to resort to using oafish expressions like "scumbag"? Why is it that if you don't agree she is a "scumbag", then you must believe she was right to do what she did?

The trouble with you and one or two others is that you do not read and understand what people have written, you make assumptions you have no right to make, and in the end make yourself look foolish.

Your heart is clearly in the right place, and for what it's worth I agree with everything that you've said except calling her a "scumbag" which is just plain vulgar. As usual, you have got over-excited regarding what you have to say, and spoiled your comment with a mouthy approach.

If you read the posts properly, you will not find a single person here agreeing with what Janice Knight has done.

Instead of just joining in with the "yah/boo" mob, I tried to think about about what led her to do it. There's a lot of people out there whose parents have been promising them an inheritance for decades, who are really angry seeing the whole lot go on care fees in just two or three years. Most of these elderly people will tell you they are furious themselves about spending all their assets on care when the government had promised to look after them "from the cradle to the grave". They paid all their lives into that fund, and they feel they have been cheated.
How do you know the old man didn't tell her to spend the money on her interests? I can tell you that most elderly people are horrified at being ripped off with extortionate care fees. Spend all you've got, then the government will HAVE to keep its promise. Can't you imagine that conversation taking place?
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag! Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.[/p][/quote]i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her[/p][/quote]Who has condoned her actions, Mary? Who? Where does anyone suggest that Janice Knight was right, or excuse what she has done? Why do we have to resort to using oafish expressions like "scumbag"? Why is it that if you don't agree she is a "scumbag", then you must believe she was right to do what she did? The trouble with you and one or two others is that you do not read and understand what people have written, you make assumptions you have no right to make, and in the end make yourself look foolish. Your heart is clearly in the right place, and for what it's worth I agree with everything that you've said except calling her a "scumbag" which is just plain vulgar. As usual, you have got over-excited regarding what you have to say, and spoiled your comment with a mouthy approach. If you read the posts properly, you will not find a single person here agreeing with what Janice Knight has done. Instead of just joining in with the "yah/boo" mob, I tried to think about about what led her to do it. There's a lot of people out there whose parents have been promising them an inheritance for decades, who are really angry seeing the whole lot go on care fees in just two or three years. Most of these elderly people will tell you they are furious themselves about spending all their assets on care when the government had promised to look after them "from the cradle to the grave". They paid all their lives into that fund, and they feel they have been cheated. How do you know the old man didn't tell her to spend the money on her interests? I can tell you that most elderly people are horrified at being ripped off with extortionate care fees. Spend all you've got, then the government will HAVE to keep its promise. Can't you imagine that conversation taking place? charrlee
  • Score: 5

8:07pm Mon 24 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Some people just can't see beyond their noses. This isn't really about the silly woman who must have known she'd be caught out.
No, this is about how you spend a lifetime accumulating some assets for your children, and then see them vanish in a couple of years via the care home scam/scandal.
I challenge anyone to go into an average care home and feel that it's £50,000 a year well spent. Each resident gets a room the size of a garden shed with cheap, second-hand furniture, the food is from Lidl or Iceland, the staff call them "derlin", or "moy luv", and there is the constant smell of bleach, urine and onions.
Of course there are a few nice places, and the poorly-paid, poorly-paid staff do their best, but take my word for it, the owners drive new Porsches, and live in posh houses.
And before any of you take off on this, I am describing what I have seen with my own eyes, been told about, and have read about regularly in the papers for several years.
The real scum are the landlords of these homes who are robbing every elderly person of their assets.
Ask yourselves this : how much would it cost you to look after your old dad for a year at home? £50,000? Half that? A quarter of that, more like. And if you were looking after 10 old dads, it would not cost anything like10 times what it costs to look after one. Yes, I know there is heating, lighting, wages, maintenance, etc., but it does NOT require a minimum of £50,000 per resident.
The most sensible thing, the most economic thing, where possible, is to look after the elderly at home.

This in no way JUSTIFIES what the lady has done.
But it might EXPLAIN it.
You sir are totally wrong. Care homes are closing up and down the country at an alarming rate and soon only super-sized national chains will be left. If it is so profitable, why is this happening? My mother has run a small care home for 25 years and despite working 70+ hours (unpaid) a week (at 68 herself) she struggles to break even at the moment.

But if you don't believe me lets look at the numbers. Lets imagine you want to stay in a hotel for 7 days a week. Cheapest hotel is about £40 per night so that's £280 per week. Then imagine that you want 3 hot meals a day with room service - that would be at least another £140 per week. Then lets imagine that you tell the hotel that you are incontinent and need taking to the toilet 10 time as day as well and being cleaned up when accidents happen - how much would they charge for that? Another £200 per week? Then you have to have any the social services, health and safety, police checks, training etc etc etc never mind gargantuan heating bills. So before you know it you are up to £500 per week just to cover your costs.......and for your information Dorset County Council only pay homes £430pw for residential care. Pot of gold it most certainly is not!!!

And as for your point about homes smelling of urine - incontinence is something we are all likely to face in our declining years and unfortunately the smell can be reduced but never eliminated unless you want homes to have hospital style floors and furnishings.
You are just making figures up! For your information I have been looking after two elderly relatives for nearly 15 years. I also know a care home manager very well, and have spoken to many more. Read the papers. Watch the TV programmes. Go round to some of the homes in Southampton and have a look at the cars the owners and managers are driving.

Some of these places are charging £60,000+ pa just for basic residential! Nursing care goes in excess of £100,000.

Your mum sounds like a very fair person. But she's rare, that I can tell you.
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Some people just can't see beyond their noses. This isn't really about the silly woman who must have known she'd be caught out. No, this is about how you spend a lifetime accumulating some assets for your children, and then see them vanish in a couple of years via the care home scam/scandal. I challenge anyone to go into an average care home and feel that it's £50,000 a year well spent. Each resident gets a room the size of a garden shed with cheap, second-hand furniture, the food is from Lidl or Iceland, the staff call them "derlin", or "moy luv", and there is the constant smell of bleach, urine and onions. Of course there are a few nice places, and the poorly-paid, poorly-paid staff do their best, but take my word for it, the owners drive new Porsches, and live in posh houses. And before any of you take off on this, I am describing what I have seen with my own eyes, been told about, and have read about regularly in the papers for several years. The real scum are the landlords of these homes who are robbing every elderly person of their assets. Ask yourselves this : how much would it cost you to look after your old dad for a year at home? £50,000? Half that? A quarter of that, more like. And if you were looking after 10 old dads, it would not cost anything like10 times what it costs to look after one. Yes, I know there is heating, lighting, wages, maintenance, etc., but it does NOT require a minimum of £50,000 per resident. The most sensible thing, the most economic thing, where possible, is to look after the elderly at home. This in no way JUSTIFIES what the lady has done. But it might EXPLAIN it.[/p][/quote]You sir are totally wrong. Care homes are closing up and down the country at an alarming rate and soon only super-sized national chains will be left. If it is so profitable, why is this happening? My mother has run a small care home for 25 years and despite working 70+ hours (unpaid) a week (at 68 herself) she struggles to break even at the moment. But if you don't believe me lets look at the numbers. Lets imagine you want to stay in a hotel for 7 days a week. Cheapest hotel is about £40 per night so that's £280 per week. Then imagine that you want 3 hot meals a day with room service - that would be at least another £140 per week. Then lets imagine that you tell the hotel that you are incontinent and need taking to the toilet 10 time as day as well and being cleaned up when accidents happen - how much would they charge for that? Another £200 per week? Then you have to have any the social services, health and safety, police checks, training etc etc etc never mind gargantuan heating bills. So before you know it you are up to £500 per week just to cover your costs.......and for your information Dorset County Council only pay homes £430pw for residential care. Pot of gold it most certainly is not!!! And as for your point about homes smelling of urine - incontinence is something we are all likely to face in our declining years and unfortunately the smell can be reduced but never eliminated unless you want homes to have hospital style floors and furnishings.[/p][/quote]You are just making figures up! For your information I have been looking after two elderly relatives for nearly 15 years. I also know a care home manager very well, and have spoken to many more. Read the papers. Watch the TV programmes. Go round to some of the homes in Southampton and have a look at the cars the owners and managers are driving. Some of these places are charging £60,000+ pa just for basic residential! Nursing care goes in excess of £100,000. Your mum sounds like a very fair person. But she's rare, that I can tell you. charrlee
  • Score: 1

10:12pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

charrlee wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag!

Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.
i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her
Who has condoned her actions, Mary? Who? Where does anyone suggest that Janice Knight was right, or excuse what she has done?

Why do we have to resort to using oafish expressions like "scumbag"? Why is it that if you don't agree she is a "scumbag", then you must believe she was right to do what she did?

The trouble with you and one or two others is that you do not read and understand what people have written, you make assumptions you have no right to make, and in the end make yourself look foolish.

Your heart is clearly in the right place, and for what it's worth I agree with everything that you've said except calling her a "scumbag" which is just plain vulgar. As usual, you have got over-excited regarding what you have to say, and spoiled your comment with a mouthy approach.

If you read the posts properly, you will not find a single person here agreeing with what Janice Knight has done.

Instead of just joining in with the "yah/boo" mob, I tried to think about about what led her to do it. There's a lot of people out there whose parents have been promising them an inheritance for decades, who are really angry seeing the whole lot go on care fees in just two or three years. Most of these elderly people will tell you they are furious themselves about spending all their assets on care when the government had promised to look after them "from the cradle to the grave". They paid all their lives into that fund, and they feel they have been cheated.
How do you know the old man didn't tell her to spend the money on her interests? I can tell you that most elderly people are horrified at being ripped off with extortionate care fees. Spend all you've got, then the government will HAVE to keep its promise. Can't you imagine that conversation taking place?
Sorry excuses don't fly with me she clearly didnt' use ANY of the money to help her dad if she was a "caring" person she wouldn't buy herself a flipping car for one. If that was my dad i sure as HELL wouldn't use the money on ANYTHING except looking after him
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag! Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.[/p][/quote]i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her[/p][/quote]Who has condoned her actions, Mary? Who? Where does anyone suggest that Janice Knight was right, or excuse what she has done? Why do we have to resort to using oafish expressions like "scumbag"? Why is it that if you don't agree she is a "scumbag", then you must believe she was right to do what she did? The trouble with you and one or two others is that you do not read and understand what people have written, you make assumptions you have no right to make, and in the end make yourself look foolish. Your heart is clearly in the right place, and for what it's worth I agree with everything that you've said except calling her a "scumbag" which is just plain vulgar. As usual, you have got over-excited regarding what you have to say, and spoiled your comment with a mouthy approach. If you read the posts properly, you will not find a single person here agreeing with what Janice Knight has done. Instead of just joining in with the "yah/boo" mob, I tried to think about about what led her to do it. There's a lot of people out there whose parents have been promising them an inheritance for decades, who are really angry seeing the whole lot go on care fees in just two or three years. Most of these elderly people will tell you they are furious themselves about spending all their assets on care when the government had promised to look after them "from the cradle to the grave". They paid all their lives into that fund, and they feel they have been cheated. How do you know the old man didn't tell her to spend the money on her interests? I can tell you that most elderly people are horrified at being ripped off with extortionate care fees. Spend all you've got, then the government will HAVE to keep its promise. Can't you imagine that conversation taking place?[/p][/quote]Sorry excuses don't fly with me she clearly didnt' use ANY of the money to help her dad if she was a "caring" person she wouldn't buy herself a flipping car for one. If that was my dad i sure as HELL wouldn't use the money on ANYTHING except looking after him Mary80
  • Score: -3

11:23pm Mon 24 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Mary80 wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag!

Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.
i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her
Who has condoned her actions, Mary? Who? Where does anyone suggest that Janice Knight was right, or excuse what she has done?

Why do we have to resort to using oafish expressions like "scumbag"? Why is it that if you don't agree she is a "scumbag", then you must believe she was right to do what she did?

The trouble with you and one or two others is that you do not read and understand what people have written, you make assumptions you have no right to make, and in the end make yourself look foolish.

Your heart is clearly in the right place, and for what it's worth I agree with everything that you've said except calling her a "scumbag" which is just plain vulgar. As usual, you have got over-excited regarding what you have to say, and spoiled your comment with a mouthy approach.

If you read the posts properly, you will not find a single person here agreeing with what Janice Knight has done.

Instead of just joining in with the "yah/boo" mob, I tried to think about about what led her to do it. There's a lot of people out there whose parents have been promising them an inheritance for decades, who are really angry seeing the whole lot go on care fees in just two or three years. Most of these elderly people will tell you they are furious themselves about spending all their assets on care when the government had promised to look after them "from the cradle to the grave". They paid all their lives into that fund, and they feel they have been cheated.
How do you know the old man didn't tell her to spend the money on her interests? I can tell you that most elderly people are horrified at being ripped off with extortionate care fees. Spend all you've got, then the government will HAVE to keep its promise. Can't you imagine that conversation taking place?
Sorry excuses don't fly with me she clearly didnt' use ANY of the money to help her dad if she was a "caring" person she wouldn't buy herself a flipping car for one. If that was my dad i sure as HELL wouldn't use the money on ANYTHING except looking after him
What IS the matter with you? Do you really think her dad or her want to spend all that money on care?
Perhaps the car was to enable her to get to the care home more often to see her dad.
What are you going to buy your dad if he's in a care home? A TV, some shirts, trousers, shoes, slippers, couple of coats, a few cardies - that lot won't cost more than about £3000.........and what's he going to say? "What did you waste all that money on me for? I don't need much in this place. Spend some on yourself before they take the bloody lot! It took all my life to save that lot up for you, now these greedy so-and-so's are going to take it all !"
Mary, I bet you're a really nice person with a heart of gold, but you're being a right old "Dumbo" about this. The kids at the Echo have written a sob-sob story, and you fell for it.
My advice to elderly people today is get equity on your house, and give all your money to your children now unless you want to see it disappear into the care home "black hole".
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I'm shocked that anyone would vote down comments that are calling this woman what she is - a scumbag! Who disagrees?? Who thinks she was doing the right thing?? Idiots that's who. Absolute idiots.[/p][/quote]i think people downvote posts just to annoy posters if i'm honest. Even when the opinion is right they'll downvote. I am disgusted people actually CONDONE her actions. It's not like she used the NINTY FIVE GRAND to feed starving kids, she used the money on selfish things people how can anyone defend her[/p][/quote]Who has condoned her actions, Mary? Who? Where does anyone suggest that Janice Knight was right, or excuse what she has done? Why do we have to resort to using oafish expressions like "scumbag"? Why is it that if you don't agree she is a "scumbag", then you must believe she was right to do what she did? The trouble with you and one or two others is that you do not read and understand what people have written, you make assumptions you have no right to make, and in the end make yourself look foolish. Your heart is clearly in the right place, and for what it's worth I agree with everything that you've said except calling her a "scumbag" which is just plain vulgar. As usual, you have got over-excited regarding what you have to say, and spoiled your comment with a mouthy approach. If you read the posts properly, you will not find a single person here agreeing with what Janice Knight has done. Instead of just joining in with the "yah/boo" mob, I tried to think about about what led her to do it. There's a lot of people out there whose parents have been promising them an inheritance for decades, who are really angry seeing the whole lot go on care fees in just two or three years. Most of these elderly people will tell you they are furious themselves about spending all their assets on care when the government had promised to look after them "from the cradle to the grave". They paid all their lives into that fund, and they feel they have been cheated. How do you know the old man didn't tell her to spend the money on her interests? I can tell you that most elderly people are horrified at being ripped off with extortionate care fees. Spend all you've got, then the government will HAVE to keep its promise. Can't you imagine that conversation taking place?[/p][/quote]Sorry excuses don't fly with me she clearly didnt' use ANY of the money to help her dad if she was a "caring" person she wouldn't buy herself a flipping car for one. If that was my dad i sure as HELL wouldn't use the money on ANYTHING except looking after him[/p][/quote]What IS the matter with you? Do you really think her dad or her want to spend all that money on care? Perhaps the car was to enable her to get to the care home more often to see her dad. What are you going to buy your dad if he's in a care home? A TV, some shirts, trousers, shoes, slippers, couple of coats, a few cardies - that lot won't cost more than about £3000.........and what's he going to say? "What did you waste all that money on me for? I don't need much in this place. Spend some on yourself before they take the bloody lot! It took all my life to save that lot up for you, now these greedy so-and-so's are going to take it all !" Mary, I bet you're a really nice person with a heart of gold, but you're being a right old "Dumbo" about this. The kids at the Echo have written a sob-sob story, and you fell for it. My advice to elderly people today is get equity on your house, and give all your money to your children now unless you want to see it disappear into the care home "black hole". charrlee
  • Score: 0

4:40am Tue 25 Feb 14

Old Boscombe Lad says...

I hope she reads some or all the comments about her that have been posted.
I hope she reads some or all the comments about her that have been posted. Old Boscombe Lad
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree