How to face an easy process when buyer’s agents do the work?

It would thus be important to ensure that the Joint Community Care Committee’s overarching role can be appropriately operationalised by establishing and developing robust links with the Joint Strategy Group. It is proposed that Buyers Agent Fees two carers representatives should attend the Committee and that existing carers networks and alliances could be utilised to provide representatives.

However, it is felt that it would be too problematic to find two service users to join the Real Estate Buyers Agent Committee as full members as there would be difficulties for service users in representing the broad interests of different care groups within Community Care. There are some difficulties in this approach, not least in the implicit suggestion that the views of service users and carers are symbiotic and in the options presented in section 5.6.

The use of public meetings, people’s juries and conferences should be welcomed in addition to the formal involvement of service users within joint planning structures. GCSH would argue that preventing service users from being equal board members within such a Committee is a regressive step that requires further consideration. As a general comment, we would like to suggest that the revised joint planning structure as presented on page 6 appears to be very ‘top / down’ in its direction. It would have also been useful within the paper to identify the potential role of the Committee to strengthen.

We are thus excited by the potential to enhance joint working further as offered by the creation of the Joint Community Care Committee. However, we would ask that further thought be given to the membership of the group to more Property Agent accurately reflect the diverse nature of Community Care service planning and delivery. The real difficulty for forecasters lay in deciding precisely what the ratio would be when equilibrium was restored, and how quickly the market achieve it. He went on to argue that, in any case, it was disposable income, rather than average earnings, that had a greater significance for house prices. That was partly because the proportion of home-buying households supported by two incomes have risen steadily over the last 25 years. If the 30% of households with the lowest incomes were discounted altogether because most of these would be on benefits and therefore unlikely to be in the market for houses.

Leave a Reply