This is the detailed application I have lodged with the High Court requesting a full Judicial Review of Hertfordshire County Council's changes to policy on charging for care together with cuts in services and the slashing of funding to the very third party organisations who are expected to pick up the slack as from April Fools Day 2011 when the cuts start to bite.
Case Lodged 28th February 2011 at the Royal Courts of Justice
Detailed Statement of Grounds
Hertfordshire County Council have clearly failed to meet their duties under Section 49(a) of the Disability Discrimination Act as amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 commonly known as the "Disability Equality Duty" (DED) which will form part of the "General Duty" under the provisions of the Equalities Act 2010 which comes into force in April 2011.
The consultation on proposals to change the Council's Non-residential Services charging policy, carried out between August and October of 2010, failed to meet the standards required under the DED and the provisions of the Department of Health Guidance for Councils with Social Services Responsibilities issued in 2003.
The Council have failed to have due regard of the government's announcements regarding additional funds which are being set aside precisely to offset the disadvantage disabled people and their carers face due to the austerity measures.
The planned reductions in funding to organisations such as Hertfordshire Action on Disability and the Supporting People Service and proposed restructuring of The Money Advice unit have/or are being put through without any consultation with those directly affected and in direct contradiction of the stated rationale for changes to Non-residential Services policy.
The changes in Non-residential charging policy are due to be implemented from 1st April 2011 it is therefore imperative that the issues raised in this application be resolved prior to that date given the chaos, uncertainty and distress to service users that will ensue if the changes are implemented and then have to be reversed at a later date. This is particularly true for the two grant funded bodies who are currently having to consider staff reductions and redundancies based on the reductions in their funding recently announced by Hertfordshire County Council.
It is also in Hertfordshire County Council's best interests that this matter be resolved as a matter of urgency in order that suitable provision can be made for funding any shortfall in revenue and/or the need to provide additional grant aid over and above that now proposed to Hertfordshire Action on Disability and Community Support Services throughout the county as a result of any lawful consultation and reconsideration of the policies in question under this application for judicial review.
As with the recent judicial review of the decision by the Leaders' Committee of London Councils to cut £10m from their £26.4m Grants Scheme, where it was held that decisions taken were unlawful because of failure to meet Public Sector Equality Duties, the result of this judicial review may well have far reaching implication for other local authorities and the bodies which they fund to provide services to disabled people.
An urgent clarification of the law in regard to what constitutes a "lawful" consultation in relation to changes in policy relating to disabled people and or the subsequent consideration of that policy will, therefore, be of benefit to all the service users of other local authorities in England, many of whom are currently in the process of imposing similar increases to charges at the same time as reducing services to these disabled people and at the same time also reducing the level of funding provided to the third sector organisations expected to pick up the slack following those cuts.
The interim order I am seeking is as follows:
"It be ordered that changes to the Hertfordshire County Council's Non-residential care charging policy and reductions in funding to relevant grant aided providers of services to disabled people in Hertfordshire, such as Hertfordshire Action on Disability and Community Support Services, be put on hold pending the result of the judicial review and thereafter be subject to any further directions or orders made by the court in respect of the judicial review in question."
Main Facts Relied on are as follows:
1. The original "Consultation" Document sent out via letter on the 21st July 2010 (pg 54 - 56) stresses throughout that the main rationale for the changes is to avoid making cuts in front line services. However, later decisions by HCC will clearly impact on front line services due to cuts in funding of organisations that provide services to disabled people and most notably with the 50% cut in the budget for the Community Support Service.
2. No mention is made at all about the inclusion of services provided by the Community Support Service to those in sheltered accommodation including those with extra care arrangements and/or those living in the community who none-the-less need to make use of their services from time to time like myself. In fact it was only the fact that I was considering moving into such sheltered housing myself whilst the consultation was underway that a member of staff "warned" me not to follow that option as they were aware of the implications for my net income if I was relying on the existing arrangements for Community Support.
3. In fact HCC went even further and actually forbade front line workers discussing the changes to charging with this particular group with the only direct information about the impending changes being that contained in the letter from Community Support Services to clients dated 4th February despite the fact many in this group will be hardest hit by the changes as currently those on housing benefit are entitled to free support but will be subject to the full impact of the changes to the tune of approximately £55.00 per week in many cases (pg 91)
4. Again no mention is made about the increase in charges for Meals on Wheels but this is included in the final report as though it had been part of the main consultation.
5. Despite it being obvious that the main group affected by the changes will be exactly the same group as were hit by the original change to "fairer" charging i.e. single adults in receipt of the severe disability premium of Income support or the equivalent for those on pension credit as they will now be extremely likely to lose the entire amount of the premium in charges but the "worked examples" used during the consultation (and indeed also the current charging for care leaflets provided by county to potential service users) fail to clarify this.
6. In effect HCC will now be taking the equivalent of the Carers allowance from disabled people even where they are only providing a few hours of care per week whereas those in receipt of Carers allowance have by definition to be providing a minimum of 35 hours of care per week to qualify.
7. It is impossible to read the original consultation documents without being given the impression that those who will be being expected to pay more would be the people with the means to pay because they were relatively affluent when the reality is that it is those on Income support levels of income who will effectively have 100% of their "disposable" income taken from them.
8. Whilst an albeit flawed consultation was carried out for some of the changes to the so called "Fairer" charging policy no such consultation has taken place with regard to the reductions if funding to key providers of support to disabled people which as recent case law has established is of itself a direct breach of the Disability and other Equality Duties the local authority has.
9. Perhaps the most stark evidence that this consultation and the Equalities Impact assessment were little more than a tick box exercises is that simple fact that the original proposals as included in the consultation have passed into policy with only minor changes to the day to day running of the scheme with regard to appeals but which still do not provide a truly "independent" review other than via a complaint to the Ombudsman.
10. Above all what is evidenced by all the documentation I have provided is that HCC have asked only "Can we do this?" and not asked the question "should we do this?" which should be the paramount concern of local authorities who are charged with helping to redress the disadvantage disabled people face rather than actually make matters worse for them.
N.B. The change in the policy will increase charges for care dramatically, especially for those on benefits, with people like myself seeing an increase in costs from about £35 per week to £55 as from April Fools Day.
Even worse for those current under the supported People Services in sheltered housing or extra care sheltered housing will see an increase from zero now (if they are in receipt of housing benefit) to the full charge of about £50 to £55 per week in one giant leap.
As I said in my "Everest" thread over on Ouch this is a battle I have to fight, even if I lose, because at least then the local authority will know that their actions are being challenged and not simply hidden in this years budget as "efficiency savings" with no mention at all that services are being cut or that disabled people are facing dramatically increased charges and that third party organisations expected to pick up the slack have all had their funding slashed.
For those wishing to follow the progress of the case the case number issued by the Administrative Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London is CO/1873/2011
Further updates will follow as and when I have more news.
As it says in the Bible: "Go though and do likewise". LOL
Peter aka "Sociable"
"Go placidly..be gentle with yourself..strive to be happy"
But don't take any $hit from either the DWP or your Local Authority. :)
Campaigning against the government's distressing war on disabled benefit claimants. All posts represent the opinions of their respective authors and not WtB as a whole.
Showing posts with label council cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label council cuts. Show all posts
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Whose care is it anyway?
Like most of the country, the Riven and Celyn Vincent case has taken up a considerable amount of space in my brain this week. Thing is, I seem to be concerned with very different elements of the case to the majority of the population.
The press coverage of the story has weighed quite heavily on my mind. Most news outlets are referring to it as the "Riven Vincent case." Celyn, the disabled person in need of a care package, doesn't usually get a name check until paragraph three; as though she's an unimportant afterthought in the story. In fact I'd bet that the majority of people who've seen/read the story probably don't even remember Celyn's name, only that of her mother. Sure the articles all come with a photo of her so people might remember that she's an absolutely beautiful girl with adorable ginger curly hair, but the photos are captioned "Riven Vincent's daughter" rather than "Celyn Vincent".
There are thousands of disabled people in the UK, both children and adults, with inadequate assistance packages. No-one wants to hear those stories. It's only when a non-disabled mother reaches snapping point that it's national news. It reminds me of how the story of Francecca Hardwick and her mum is usually referred to as the "Fiona Pilkington case". Disablist hate crime has killed many, many people over the years and none of those stories have come to the forefront of public consciousness. So why did that case? My theory is that, for the first time, disablist hate crime was responsible for the death of a non-disabled person.
And so it is with Celyn and her mum. Disabled people up and down the country are forced to sit in a puddle of their own piss for the best part of a day until their carer comes in for 15 minutes at bedtime to help them change; and inadequate social care is not a national scandal. A mother reaches snapping point and people are, rightfully, horrified.
One of my friends said "But at least there's a story involving social care cuts that the public is getting behind. It's something, and a step forward." I, however, wonder if it is a step forward or if the story is actually going to prove advantageous for disabled children and their parents at the expense of the social care of disabled adults.
I'm not for a second suggesting that support for disabled children should go out the window in favour of support for disabled adults. Not only do I think that everyone should have their support needs met, but once upon a time I was a disabled child myself so I understand that in some respects a disabled child's social care needs can be more complex and costly than those of an adult. A really good example is wheelchair provision; as a child I needed new wheelchairs much more frequently than I do now because I was growing.
I think there's a very real risk that with so much attention being directed at children's social care packages at the moment that more cuts will be aimed at adult services to preserve the funding for assistance of children and their parents.
David Cameron said that "he did not believe the case was connected to public service cuts." And as the Vincents have always had 6 hours a week assistance and that hasn't gone down, he was probably telling the truth. But if he wants disabled children and their families to have more help while his buddy Osborne is cutting local authority budgets, where is that money for the extra help going to come from if the money isn't being taken from adult social care to pay for child social care?
We have to remember that in the run up to the election Cameron kept on saying that he wanted life to be simpler for the parents of disabled children. He never, ever, even once, expressed any interest in or concern for disabled people over the age of 16. So I really don't think I'm just being cynical when I expect him to hang disabled adults out to dry.
I really hope Celyn Vincent gets a care package that will allow her to be an equal in her family, rather than just a stressor. I want to see all disabled children get the assistance they need to be a "normal" part of family life. I want to see all disabled parents have the help they need for their child to not be a carer. I want elderly people to not have to sit in their own incontinence for 12 hours. I'd quite like someone to help me with the more painful aspects of housework rather than having to look at my filthy floor wondering how much longer I can get away with not hoovering. I'd also very much like to be proved wrong and for the current focus on children's care to not have the end result of making life harder for over 16s.
The press coverage of the story has weighed quite heavily on my mind. Most news outlets are referring to it as the "Riven Vincent case." Celyn, the disabled person in need of a care package, doesn't usually get a name check until paragraph three; as though she's an unimportant afterthought in the story. In fact I'd bet that the majority of people who've seen/read the story probably don't even remember Celyn's name, only that of her mother. Sure the articles all come with a photo of her so people might remember that she's an absolutely beautiful girl with adorable ginger curly hair, but the photos are captioned "Riven Vincent's daughter" rather than "Celyn Vincent".
There are thousands of disabled people in the UK, both children and adults, with inadequate assistance packages. No-one wants to hear those stories. It's only when a non-disabled mother reaches snapping point that it's national news. It reminds me of how the story of Francecca Hardwick and her mum is usually referred to as the "Fiona Pilkington case". Disablist hate crime has killed many, many people over the years and none of those stories have come to the forefront of public consciousness. So why did that case? My theory is that, for the first time, disablist hate crime was responsible for the death of a non-disabled person.
And so it is with Celyn and her mum. Disabled people up and down the country are forced to sit in a puddle of their own piss for the best part of a day until their carer comes in for 15 minutes at bedtime to help them change; and inadequate social care is not a national scandal. A mother reaches snapping point and people are, rightfully, horrified.
One of my friends said "But at least there's a story involving social care cuts that the public is getting behind. It's something, and a step forward." I, however, wonder if it is a step forward or if the story is actually going to prove advantageous for disabled children and their parents at the expense of the social care of disabled adults.
I'm not for a second suggesting that support for disabled children should go out the window in favour of support for disabled adults. Not only do I think that everyone should have their support needs met, but once upon a time I was a disabled child myself so I understand that in some respects a disabled child's social care needs can be more complex and costly than those of an adult. A really good example is wheelchair provision; as a child I needed new wheelchairs much more frequently than I do now because I was growing.
I think there's a very real risk that with so much attention being directed at children's social care packages at the moment that more cuts will be aimed at adult services to preserve the funding for assistance of children and their parents.
David Cameron said that "he did not believe the case was connected to public service cuts." And as the Vincents have always had 6 hours a week assistance and that hasn't gone down, he was probably telling the truth. But if he wants disabled children and their families to have more help while his buddy Osborne is cutting local authority budgets, where is that money for the extra help going to come from if the money isn't being taken from adult social care to pay for child social care?
We have to remember that in the run up to the election Cameron kept on saying that he wanted life to be simpler for the parents of disabled children. He never, ever, even once, expressed any interest in or concern for disabled people over the age of 16. So I really don't think I'm just being cynical when I expect him to hang disabled adults out to dry.
I really hope Celyn Vincent gets a care package that will allow her to be an equal in her family, rather than just a stressor. I want to see all disabled children get the assistance they need to be a "normal" part of family life. I want to see all disabled parents have the help they need for their child to not be a carer. I want elderly people to not have to sit in their own incontinence for 12 hours. I'd quite like someone to help me with the more painful aspects of housework rather than having to look at my filthy floor wondering how much longer I can get away with not hoovering. I'd also very much like to be proved wrong and for the current focus on children's care to not have the end result of making life harder for over 16s.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Stealth Cuts – Other ways we are being hurt – Part 2
While massive spending cuts hit us all, my council – Waltham Forest - has taken the step of asking its residents where they should make savings. A friendly green website presented me with 8 different categories such as “children’s services” and “your streets” and invited me to make cuts of £55m. Suddenly I realised the mammoth scale of this undertaking – the way that no facilities or services can escape unscathed. However, I gave myself the challenge of maintaining adult social care at its current rate.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think adult social care is currently even adequate in my borough. I have been told that if someone can manage to give themself a flannel-bath, then they are not entitled to any kind of care. Of course this doesn’t take account of any inability to cook safely, nor to take out the rubbish or manage laundry! But simply trying to juggle cuts while keeping rates of social care at their current level made me aware of the huge task that councils are facing.
Each topic came with a slider – I simply had to pick categories and drag them to save money, and the website would let me know the impact of my actions. For example as I removed all funding from “Sport & Leisure” I was informed that the impact would be "reduced support to voluntary sector sports clubs, reduced sports activities in parks and estates and reduced sports activities and participation in competitions and events". While any cutback is a shame, I don’t feel guilty in removing sports activities when compared to helping disabled people to eat, be clean and maintain independence.
However, although there are eight categories and sliders to adjust, it is instantly clear that some categories will have little impact in making the £55m of required savings. After all, the total budget for Housing & Homelessness is just £4.85m. For Culture, Learning & Community Libraries the budget is £6.91m. In fact, if I set 6 of the 8 sliders to zero – removing all funding in those categories whatsoever – I still need to save another £28m. This money can only come from Children’s Services & Education, or the Adult Social Care that I am fighting to protect. In fact if I maintain adult care at its current level, the system shows me that I have no choice but to cut Children’s Services by more than 25%, removing several social workers and forcing large numbers of at-risk children to stay in their home rather than go into care – something which the real world would not tolerate. My changes would even impose the removal of care packages for disabled children; it seems that whichever way I go, with the huge quantity of cuts required, there will be a direct impact on disabled people one way or another.
Because adult social care comprises such a very large proportion of a council’s expenditure, it’s natural that many people will think that this is an obvious way to make savings. And although any such cutback is abhorrent to my mind, it may be essential in order for our councils to stay solvent. I am pleasantly surprised that although adult social care draws so much money, respondents to Waltham Forest’s website have only voted for a 7% reduction in our services. “Only” 7%. If the council implement cutbacks based on this consultation, they will “only” ...increase charges for their services (when many service users may be on benefits and unable to contribute financially for their care) ...reduce programmes to support vulnerable people and their carers ...and make staffing cuts so there will be even longer delays for assessments than there are at the moment.
Wow. Yet when I play with the figures myself, I can see that this may be a lucky escape - no matter how bad it seems, things can always be worse!
Unfortunately, in the three weeks that this website has been running, only 733 people have responded. That’s a quarter of 1% of everyone who lives in the area. How disappointing, that we are offered this opportunity to have our say and shape service provision for the future, and yet barely anyone bothers? It’s not for want of publicity, as a flyer went out with “Waltham Forest News”, a council newspaper delivered to every household in the borough.
I am utterly opposed to cuts of services and benefits which help disabled and older people to remain independent. I am increasingly concerned about these “stealth” cuts made by boroughs, where there is no right of appeal. But even I must admit that I can’t see what the solution is, other than to hope the economy recovers quickly, and that disabled people are the first to have their services reinstated when more funds are available.
In the meantime, I fear hearing about the human side of these cuts. I already see case studies in the local paper, I know people who are struggling, and situations where older or disabled neighbours have to provide food for one another. I know this is already happening on my own doorstep and I am dreading the situation getting worse. It seems the councils are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is tell them to cut anything, everything, but adult social care.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think adult social care is currently even adequate in my borough. I have been told that if someone can manage to give themself a flannel-bath, then they are not entitled to any kind of care. Of course this doesn’t take account of any inability to cook safely, nor to take out the rubbish or manage laundry! But simply trying to juggle cuts while keeping rates of social care at their current level made me aware of the huge task that councils are facing.
Each topic came with a slider – I simply had to pick categories and drag them to save money, and the website would let me know the impact of my actions. For example as I removed all funding from “Sport & Leisure” I was informed that the impact would be "reduced support to voluntary sector sports clubs, reduced sports activities in parks and estates and reduced sports activities and participation in competitions and events". While any cutback is a shame, I don’t feel guilty in removing sports activities when compared to helping disabled people to eat, be clean and maintain independence.
However, although there are eight categories and sliders to adjust, it is instantly clear that some categories will have little impact in making the £55m of required savings. After all, the total budget for Housing & Homelessness is just £4.85m. For Culture, Learning & Community Libraries the budget is £6.91m. In fact, if I set 6 of the 8 sliders to zero – removing all funding in those categories whatsoever – I still need to save another £28m. This money can only come from Children’s Services & Education, or the Adult Social Care that I am fighting to protect. In fact if I maintain adult care at its current level, the system shows me that I have no choice but to cut Children’s Services by more than 25%, removing several social workers and forcing large numbers of at-risk children to stay in their home rather than go into care – something which the real world would not tolerate. My changes would even impose the removal of care packages for disabled children; it seems that whichever way I go, with the huge quantity of cuts required, there will be a direct impact on disabled people one way or another.
Because adult social care comprises such a very large proportion of a council’s expenditure, it’s natural that many people will think that this is an obvious way to make savings. And although any such cutback is abhorrent to my mind, it may be essential in order for our councils to stay solvent. I am pleasantly surprised that although adult social care draws so much money, respondents to Waltham Forest’s website have only voted for a 7% reduction in our services. “Only” 7%. If the council implement cutbacks based on this consultation, they will “only” ...increase charges for their services (when many service users may be on benefits and unable to contribute financially for their care) ...reduce programmes to support vulnerable people and their carers ...and make staffing cuts so there will be even longer delays for assessments than there are at the moment.
Wow. Yet when I play with the figures myself, I can see that this may be a lucky escape - no matter how bad it seems, things can always be worse!
Unfortunately, in the three weeks that this website has been running, only 733 people have responded. That’s a quarter of 1% of everyone who lives in the area. How disappointing, that we are offered this opportunity to have our say and shape service provision for the future, and yet barely anyone bothers? It’s not for want of publicity, as a flyer went out with “Waltham Forest News”, a council newspaper delivered to every household in the borough.
I am utterly opposed to cuts of services and benefits which help disabled and older people to remain independent. I am increasingly concerned about these “stealth” cuts made by boroughs, where there is no right of appeal. But even I must admit that I can’t see what the solution is, other than to hope the economy recovers quickly, and that disabled people are the first to have their services reinstated when more funds are available.
In the meantime, I fear hearing about the human side of these cuts. I already see case studies in the local paper, I know people who are struggling, and situations where older or disabled neighbours have to provide food for one another. I know this is already happening on my own doorstep and I am dreading the situation getting worse. It seems the councils are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is tell them to cut anything, everything, but adult social care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)