Oct 172012
 

here is a press release about the legal challenge being launched against the ILF consultation, please use it to send to you local papers and others.

Legal challenge to government plan to close the Independent Living Fund

A judicial review has been launched to challenge the DWP consultation on closing the Independent Living Fund (ILF).  Six disabled claimants who receive support from the ILF have started judicial review proceedings to challenge the consultation, which closed on 12 October.

The ILF is a body of the DWP but under the management of independent trustees. Since it was created in 1988 it has helped many thousands of disabled people to live independent lives. It has targeted support at the most severely disabled people in the UK who face the greatest barriers to independent living, enabling them to remain living in the community rather than in residential care, to work, and play an active part in their community as full citizens.  In 2010 the fund was closed to new applicants because the government had reduced the amount of money it gave to the fund.  It is now proposing that the fund close completely in 2015, leaving users to rely on local authority adult care services.  This is at a time when the funding for local authorities is being dramatically reduced and many authorities are cutting services for disabled people.

The basis of the challenge is that the consultation does not comply with the basic legal requirements:

  • The government has failed to explain why it is only considering closing the fund, rather than other options, such as continuing the fund and re-opening it to young adults who want to live independent lives.
  • It does not give enough information about the difference between local authority assessment and provision and the ILF.  Local authority services focus on basic needs whereas the ILF is about enabling people to be independent, to work and be full citizens;
  • The government has failed to undertake any assessment of the way disabled people will be affected by the proposals, in breach of their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010.

The claimants are asking the court to make a declaration that the consultation is unlawful and that any decision that is based on the consultation is unlawful.  The DWP have until 30th of October to put forward its defence.

Contact:

Solicitors representing the claimants:

Scott-Moncrieff & Associates (Diane Astin/Kate Whittaker)

Office 7,19 Greenwood Place

LondonNW5 1LB                           Tel:  020 7485 5588/ 07792 700825

Deighton Pierce Glynn (Louise Whitfield)

8 Union Street

LondonSE1 1SZ                                              Tel:  020 7407 0007

 

Organisation _ Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC)

Linda

 Posted by at 16:54

  12 Responses to “Press Release re ILF legal challenge.”

  1. [...] believe that, you’ll believe anything. ILF recipients certainly don’t: a group of claimants has started court proceedings to challenge last year’s “consultation” on the closure. It’s the wider context that is the issue here. Council budgets and services are being [...]

  2. you asked for proof,
    of hard-law*
    look. V
    http://CRPDis“hardlaw”–UKP

    • thanks Richard

    • further to our exchange above*
      I’ve since discovered that as the,
      unchrdp,
      is an international treaty!
      it is most definitely*
      classed as hard-law!
      so now the right to independent-living,
      is enshrined in EU* law
      so now kick-asss!

  3. How can Local authories give a well balance and substancial amount of care to meet the individual needs of each and every person! The cuts are already infrindging on the local councils and services for supporting disabled people, my family and others I know have already been let down by these sectors. This will have a massive inpact on the care needs and service already straining under this Gov. I have been trying to get my don a care assessment done by the social services over the last mounth and surprise, surprise no one as got back to me! and this is before they fully take on the new Government schemes. This is going to be a disaster for the much needed services and very bad time for this countrys disabled people.

  4. it’s a about bloody time this shambles of a so called peoples goverment were dragged into court to answer for this…they have already proved that to get what they want they will break the law as they did two years ago when they tried to claw back over payments and they lost that one…so gather a strong bullet proof case as these weasels will do their lowest to crawl out of it..after all whats a a lot more deaths to them if it saves money…they have blood on their hands and they must answer for it….regards…sandra.

  5. another good challenge!
    would be Article19*
    of the UNCHRDP,
    it concerns,
    the right to,
    independent-living!
    the UK* ratified in 2008!
    and is recognised as hard-law!

  6. I have been appointed as Ambassador for Scotland for Disabled Persons User Led organisations and have been a recipient of ILF for a number of years. This is totally different to support and care in as much as it really has allowed me to participate in all the things I do. Without ILF I would be back in the house and I know that if the funds go to the local authority social work department they are going to l be hit with the fall out from the Welfare benefit reforms and with the best will in the world will have to ensure that they implement their eligibility criteria. This will not cover the same “Independent Living” aims that the current fund ensures. Can I also say this Independent living is not going on holiday, living the high life it is however totally person centred and I cannot stress the need for this independence. Can I turn this on its head and ask why the Fund cannot do more and look at SDSS as well!

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

CAPTCHA Image

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

16 queries in 2.963 seconds.