Mental Health Resistance Network: victory on case against WCA!

 Action, All Posts, Atos, Benefits, legal challenges, local groups, News, Welfare reforms  2 Responses »
May 222013
 

Three judges today confirmed what DPAC and other campaigners have been saying since 2010– the benefits test used to decide whether people are fit for work, actively discriminates against disabled people and those with mental health issues

 Mental health Resistance network (MHRN) have won the judicial review case against the DWP on the clear inadequacy of the Work Capability Assessments. They supported two users who took a case against the DWP for the harm these tests do to those with mental health issues. The WCA has been severely criticised since the Condems took over the reins from the New Labour WCA inception, making the tests more and more difficult and more and more humiliating for all concerned.

 Last week Dr Greg Wood resigned claiming the tests were biased, there have been a number of high profile resignations from nurses resigning and claiming that not only were the tests unfair they were degrading. This is a subject disabled people know all too well, from the millions lavished on Atos for tests and the millions for appeals.

 The  judicial review focussed on specific issues for those with mental health issues – that of gathering supporting evidence. Under the current system, individuals are responsible for gathering their own medical evidence and sending it to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). If anyone fails to do this, it simply won’t be looked at, and in many cases if you do do this your papers will be brushed aside (see DPACs survey responses on the WCA HERE).

Reporting the victory DPAC’s sister group,  Black Triangle Campaign wrote:

“The judgment that the DWP is in breach of the Equality Act is a huge victory for everyone affected by severe mental illness, but it’s sad that it took a court case to force the DWP to take action”.

DPAC wants to congratulate the two people that took the case, MHRN and all others that supported this. We hope this is another step towards outlawing these tests and stopping them for the damage they are causing all disabled people as called for by the BMA and the RCN.

We note that the big Disability charities have , as usual, chosen to take the credit for this success and we say again that this success is due to MHRN a small group that chose to do something. It is due to the two people that took the case and the solicitors involved. This case was not initiated by any of the big disability charities-despite them joining in later to save face.

 The charities sat back and did nothing, but they are fast to take the credit for something that they didn’t even contribute too. We hope that the success of the MHRN actions leads to an end to this inhuman process for all and we congratulate them for their tenacity and their actions in getting someone done- to the charities we say: we know the difference between the real heroes and those that try to bask in reflected glory-if you had made the move that MHRN had or acted more vigorously we might applaud you, as it is we are, once more unimpressed by your actions.

 see also:

http://dpac.uk.net/2013/05/esa-regulations-25-and-31-campaign-black-triangle-to-meet-with-scottish-parliament-welfare-reform-committee-chief-this-thursday/

http://dpac.uk.net/2013/05/where-are-the-mental-function-champions-at-atos-and-other-atos-type-things/

http://dpac.uk.net/2013/01/dpac-press-release-wca-descriptors-fail-dwp-fails-atos-fails/

http://dpac.uk.net/2012/10/joint-statement-on-work-capability-assessment-wca-by-dpac-and-black-triangle/

http://dpac.uk.net/2012/11/dpac-survey-responses-on-wca-what-harrington-didnt-ask/

 

 

 

 

Will Legal Victory by MHRN against the Atos Tests be our Last?

 Action, All Posts, Independent Living, legal challenges, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
May 222013
 

On the 22 May the Mental Health Resistance Network won their Judicial Review case against the Atos tests (WCA) and the impact on those with mental health issues. We congratulate them, the two people that took the case and the solicitors for the work they have done in exposing the WCA for the nightmare that it is for those with mental health issues and all disabled people. The DWP say they will appeal the ruling: we hope this is the beginning of the end for the WCA and the horrors that it is putting people through. However, this success would not have been possible without legal aid, and is tempered with further fears of the legal aid cuts.

 The Condems have already pushed through some of their wealth charter on justice and legal rights through their punitive cuts to legal aid for those facing benefit problems. Its not over yet-they now want to re-examine the process of Judicial reviews. However, the cuts so far are already affecting the process of judicial reviews because the new rules mean that those solicitors who take cases are less likely to be paid with the Condem cuts. We do not see all the work that goes into cases nor the effect that the cuts are having on those solicitors and legal firms who believe that justice has no class basis and is not restricted to those with wealth. But the Condems have cut funds to solicitors and CABs which means we have fewer allies to fight our cases. The Condems are doing a great job of removing every element of human rights, welfare and social justice from the British people. We cannot continue to let them get away with it without doing more and more about it.

 The proposals cover a range of aspects of legal aid including criminal work, prison law and judicial review and it can be difficult to get across what it means.

 In judicial review, for example, it’s hard to explain the impact of the proposal to prevent solicitors getting paid for all the work they do on cases if they don’t end up getting permission to go to a full hearing. So many cases succeed before that by just spelling out what the public body is doing wrong so they realise they have to sort it out. But there can be loads of work involved in getting to that stage and it would be really hard if lawyers can’t get paid for that at all. Judicial review lawyers and other legal aid lawyers will try everything they can to keep trying to help people but it just gets harder and harder to survive and already that means it’s hard to find someone skilled enough who can take cases on.

 What is clear is that disabled people will be disproportionately affected within each of the areas that is proposed to be cut – including disabled prisoners and others in the criminal justice system but also in areas like public law/judicial review which disabled people need help with more than ever now because of the effects of other cuts.

 We are trying to encourage as many people as possible to come forward with stories that illustrate the real types of problems they face that legal aid is vital to help with. There is a brilliant website set up by someone from Young Legal Aid Lawyers http://savelegalaid.wordpress.com/

 People can submit stories of how legal aid has helped them (or hasn’t been able to help them because of the effect of the cuts already – eg in many areas there are ‘advice deserts’ where you simply can’t get hold of a lawyer with the right expertise). There are several about disabled people unable to fight injustice because of cuts already in place in many areas including the criminal justice system.

 We need to see more experiences good and bad – the issues and what can be done to sort them out are so invisible to most people. There aren’t many examples of disabled people tackling problems with social services cuts etc.

 The website makes it really simple to give the examples. It’s so important to show people that it’s not about lawyers, it’s about people who need advice, and it’s a false economy to deny them that, in so many ways not least undermining the rule of law because people have no real access to justice unless they are wealthy.

 Please help and give your stories http://savelegalaid.wordpress.com/

Tweet share on Face Book and pass this on- its up to us!

Please complete the consultation closing date June 4th HERE

More info on Consultation and what is happening HERE

Call Out for Disabled People who Missed Out on Applying to the Independent Living Fund

 Action, All Posts, Disability Rights, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
May 172013
 

Government plans to permanently shut the Independent Living Fund are a concern for all disabled people and to everyone who cares about inclusion and social justice in the UK. The ILF was set up to support disabled people with the highest level of support need to live independently in the community regardless of their level of support need and when the alternative was residential care. The end of the ILF without adequate alternative support provision signals the end of the right to independent living for disabled people and a breach of Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People.

The ILF has been shut to new applicants since December 2010 and thousands of disabled people must therefore have missed out on support needed to enjoy full and meaningful lives. At both central and local government levels no information has been recorded to monitor the impact of this and to measure any potential breach of Article 19.

Inclusion London and Disabled People Against Cuts are asking for individual disabled people to come forward if you think you would have been eligible to apply to the ILF before it was shut at the end of 2010. It is important that information is recorded from the UK about any threat to disabled people’s fundamental rights and freedoms and will give disabled people in the UK the chance to invoke international protection of our rights.

If you are happy to share your story, information the support you get (or don’t get) and the impact this has on your life then please contact ellen.clifford@inclusionlondon.co.uk or phone 020 7036 6032.

 

Bedroom Tax Challenge at the High Court 15th May: Press Release

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, legal challenges, News, Welfare reforms  6 Responses »
May 142013
 

The High Court will consider, over 3 days starting tomorrow (Wednesday 15th May), 10 claims being brought against the Government’s ‘Bedroom Tax’, the new housing benefit regulations that came into force on 1st April this year.

These new regulations will reduce housing benefit for tenants in the social sector who have been assessed as under-occupying their accommodation.
The claims are made by a range of people who seek to challenge the new housing benefit regulations on the grounds that they discriminate against persons who require larger accommodation for reasons relating to their disability.
Since 1 April, persons deemed to have 1 spare bedroom have had their housing benefit reduced by 14% and persons deemed to have 2 or more spare bedrooms have had their housing benefit reduced by 25%.
The government claims that they have made financial resources available in recognition of the serious effects on the claimants of these new regulations, through the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme. However, those represented in this action argue that the DHP fund is simply not large enough to come close to meeting the needs of those affected.
3 law firms are representing the Claimants: Hopkin Murray Beskine, Leigh Day and Public Law Solicitors.
Rebekah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Beskine said:
“My clients are disabled children and their families who don’t have a ‘spare’ room. Two of the families I represent have fled serious domestic violence and have only recently been able to settle down in their new, safe homes. One family who were able to move to a suitable home after many years in appalling housing conditions have been told that their son would need to go into residential care if they moved to a smaller home. This would cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds and would separate a disabled child from his family.
“My clients can’t simply increase their hours of work, because of their children’s needs. They can’t take in lodgers because they don’t have a spare room. There are also obvious safety concerns about taking in a lodger in a family where there are vulnerable children. Many families up and down the country are, like my clients, desperately worried about losing their homes”

Ugo Hayter from the Human Rights team at Leigh Day said:
“We hope that the Court will rule that these Regulations are discriminatory in that they completely fail to make any provision for those who need larger accommodation as a result of their or their family members’ disability.
“We hope that the government will be made to amend these Regulations and reverse the devastating consequences currently being experienced by thousands of people with disabilities around the country.”
Anne McMurdie from Public Law Solicitors said:
“The Government has failed to recognise that many people with disabilities will not be able to make up the shortfall in rent by working or taking in a lodger; and many will not be able to move due to the nature of their disabilities.
“Left unchanged these measures will see disabled people facing eviction and homelessness.”

Background

Law Firm Hopkin Murray Beskine are representing 5 families (names have been changed for anonymity)
The first family consists of a husband and wife and their two children Jack who is 6 and Roza who is 2 who currently live in a two-bedroom property in South London on the third floor of a block of flats, which is unsuitable for Jack’s needs as he is disabled. The husband, Ramzi, has had to adapt his working patterns to help care for Jack, therefore the family need help from housing benefit to pay their rent.The family needs to move for a number of reasons related to Jack’s condition however if they are allocated and accept a home which meets their children’s needs their housing benefit will be cut on the basis that they are ‘under-occupying’ despite the fact that they will only be allocated accommodation appropriate to their needs.
The second family represented by Hopkin Murray Beskine became homeless in 2011 when the then partner of the mother, Holly, assaulted her 6-year-old son Isaac, leaving him traumatised. After her ex-partner was jailed Holly made a homelessness application. The family were assessed as requiring 3-bedroom accommodation because of Isaac’s behavioural and mental health issues. Holly received a letter from her local authority informing her that she was under-occupying and that her housing benefit will be cut by £15.52 a week from 1st April 2013.
Jane and Adam and their two sons have lived in their current home since July 2012. Their home is a three-bedroom bungalow, which they rent from the local authority in North London.Under the local authority’s allocation scheme a family of this size would usually be assessed as requiring a two-bedroom property. Brothers aged 10 and 12 would be expected to share a bedroom. However the family was assessed as requiring an additional bedroom as 10-year-old Thomas is severely autistic with a learning disability associated with significant challenging behaviour. He is described by his psychiatrist a having, “profound emotional, behavioural and learning disabilities” .
Ms T and her husband live in a one bedroom flat with their sons. One son has autism and one son has Downs Syndrome. Their flat is damp and infested with mice. The child with autism sleeps in the bedroom, as he needs his own space. The parents and the child with Downs syndrome sleep on the floor in the living room. Because of the boys conflicting needs they have been assessed as needing three bedrooms by the council, but like Jack and Roza’s family, if they move to suitable accommodation they wont be able to pay for it because of the bedroom tax.
Ms N lives with her son and daughter in London. About three years ago she and the children left the home of her very violent partner. With help from social services they have managed to settle in a new home away from the children’s violent father, who does not know where they live. One of the children is autistic and is violent including towards his sister. He has his own room. He finds change difficult and would be unsettled by having to move. Comfort works as a dinner lady: this fits well with the children’s school hours. Since learning about the bedroom tax she has become anxious with awful memories of the time when she was homeless because of violence. The children are well settled in their local school. She cant work more hours. She can’t take in a lodger: she does not have a spare room and her son’s behaviour would make it very difficult to have a lodger anyway.
Hopkin Murray Beskine website:

http://www.hmbsolicitors.co.uk

Law Firm Leigh Day are representing
Jacqueline Carmichael and Richard Rourke
Jacqueline Carmichael lives with her husband in a two-bedroom housing association flat. She has spina bifida and is severely disabled. Mrs Carmichael’s condition means that she has to sleep in a hospital bed with an electronic pressure mattress and has to sleep in a fixed position. Mr Carmichael cannot sleep in this bed with her as it is not large enough for two people and his movements at night could cause her harm. There is not enough space in her bedroom for a second bed so Mr Carmichael sleeps in a second bedroom.
Since 1 April, the Carmichaels have had their housing benefit reduced by 14%. They have now been granted a Discretionary Housing Payment to cover the shortfall in their rent for six months, but they do not know how they will meet their rent when the period ends. Mr Carmichael considered the option of seeking employment to cover the shortfall in the rent, however if he did this, as full time carer to his wife, Mrs Carmichael would need to go into residential care. This is therefore not a viable option.

Richard Rourke is a widower. He is disabled and uses a wheelchair. He is a council tenant and lives in a three-bedroom bungalow. His stepdaughter is currently a university student and is also disabled with a rare form of muscular dystrophy. She lives in halls of residence during term time but returns home for the full summer vacation, at holiday periods and at weekends when she can.
 Mr Rourke uses the third bedroom, which is a box room measuring 8 x 9 feet, to store his equipment including a hoist for lifting him, his power chair and his shower seat.
Mr Rourke has enquired in the social rented sector about the availability of two bedroom properties, which are suitable for wheelchair use, and there are none. There are also no suitably adapted properties in the private sector.
Since April 2013, Mr Rourke has had his housing benefit reduced by 25%, on the basis that he is under-occupying by two bedrooms. Mr Rourke’s only income is from benefits; he cannot work; and his day-to-day living costs are increased due to his disabilities, he has not been able to pay the shortfall in his rent of £25.38 per week. Mr Rourke made an application for Discretionary Housing Payment in March 2013, however it has not yet been decided. He is currently accruing rent arrears.
Leigh Day website:

www.leighday.co.uk

Law Firm Public Law Solicitors are representing James Daly, Mervyn Drage and JD (whose details have been anonymised)
James Daly has a severely disabled son. He and his ex-partner when his son was approximately eighteen months. Since that time Mr Daly and his ex-partner have shared his son’s care. Mr Daly’s son stays with him every weekend and at least one day during the week. He also lives with Mr Daly for part of the school holidays and whenever his mother is away. Following the separation from his ex-partner Mr Daly moved into housing association rented property. In 2008, following an application for allocation of a two bedroom accessible ground floor property, he was awarded a priority level within the local housing authority’s allocation scheme which recognised that his then accommodation was unsuitable due to his son’s disability, and that Mr Daly had a high priority need to move. Mr Daly was offered his present accommodation three years ago. He occupies a two bedroom flat on the ground floor which has level access throughout and also has access to a garden front and back. Mr Daly’s son can mobilise throughout the property. Under the Housing Benefit rules Mr Daly is deemed to be over-occupying his property by one bedroom (his son’s room).
Mervyn Drage is a single man who lives alone. Mr Drage occupies a three bedroom flat in a high-rise tower block, on the site of a former colliery. The property was initially built to house miners and their families, but the flat was let to him because the local housing authority considered it unsuitable for families. He has lived there for 19 years. He has a number of significant mental health problems (depression, anxiety and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, OCD) and various physical problems. These conditions are exacerbated by stress, anxiety and changes to routine. Mr Drage does not sleep in any of his three bedrooms, all of which contain papers, which he has accumulated (as does his bath). He is settled in the flat and the area, feels safe there, and is very anxious about the prospect of having to move and disruption to his routines.
JD
JD lives with her 26-year-old daughter, AD. JD and AD occupy a specially adapted three-bedroom property. They have lived there for about twenty years. AD has a twin brother who previously lived in the house but has now moved out (leaving 1 spare room). AD has severe physical disabilities, learning disabilities and blindness. JD provides full-time care for AD. The property was specially constructed to meet AD’s needs, with input from the family, an occupational therapist and a property development team. AD’s home is extremely important to her in maintaining her psychological security in her surroundings. As a result of her learning disabilities and blindness it would be difficult for her to manage the transition to a new home and there are concerns requiring her to move would have a significant impact on her psychological emotional and behavioural well being.
Public Law Solicitors website:

http://www.publiclawsolicitors.co.uk

-ENDS-
The hearing is due to start at 10:30amon Wednesday 15th May
Court Number: 3

Lawyers for the claimants will be at the Royal Courts of Justice in London from 9:30am and will be available for interview. None of the claimants will be attending.

A number of groups will be organising a vigil tomorrow morning from 9:30am outside the Royal courts of Justice in solidarity with the claimants taking challenges against the bedroom tax – these include Disabled People Against Cuts, Taxpayers Against Poverty, Camden United for Benefit Justice, Single Mothers’ Self-Defence, and WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities).

Contact:
David Standard
Head of Media Relations
Leigh Day

dstandard@leighday.co.uk

0844 800 4981
07540 332717

Bedroom Tax Hearing VIGIL 15th may 9.30 am

 Action, legal challenges, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
May 142013
 

Wednesday 15th May, 9.30am

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, WC2A 2ll.

Please join us outside the Royal Courts of Justice to show solidarity and support to the claimants taking a challenge against the Government’s ‘Bedroom Tax’ that came into force on 1 April this year. The ten claims, made by a range of people affected by the Bedroom Tax, will be heard together over three days starting on Wednesday 15 May.

The ten claims, made by a range of people affected by the Bedroom Tax which came into force from 1st April this year, will be heard together over three days starting on Wednesday 15 May.

Jacqueline who has spina bifida is not able to share a bed with her husband and as there is not enough space in her bedroom for a second bed he sleeps in a second bedroom. The couple have been awarded a Discretionary Housing Payment to cover the 14% under-occupation penalty on their housing benefit that came in from 1st April but this payment will only last 6 months and they do not know how they will meet their rent when it ends.

Richard is a wheelchair user whose disabled stepdaughter lives in university halls of residence during term time. He uses his third bedroom to store equipment including a hoist, power chair and shower seat. He has had his housing benefit reduced by 25%, on the basis that he is under-occupying by two bedrooms but there are no suitably adapted properties for him to move to in either the social rented or the private sector.

The challenge comes less than a week after the Sunday People told the story of how disabled mother Stephanie Bottrill tragically took her own life after being ordered to pay an extra £20 per week under the government’s vicious bedroom tax.

The vigil is being called by Camden United for Benefit Justice, Disabled People Against Cuts, Single Mothers’ Self-Defence, Taxpayers Against Poverty, and WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities).

For more information about the hearing:

http://wearespartacus.org.uk/bedroom-tax-hearing-starts-15-may/

http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2013/March-2013/Government-lose-Bedroom-Tax-challenge-decision

 

 

DPAC on ILF Judgement April 24th: Press Release

 Action, All Posts, Disability Rights, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, News, Welfare reforms  1 Response »
Apr 302013
 

If you can judge a nation by how it treats those in most need, the judgement on this nation is damning. Those with the highest needs are effectively being attacked by a government for a circumstance they had no choice in: being disabled.

It is a damning indictment of this government that they have launched attack after attack on disabled people leaving them without support and removing income. The proposed closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) is the latest in that assault.

Five severely disabled people whose right to live independently in the community and who face having their lives trampled on by a decision which has never been discussed let alone voted on in parliament have vowed to carry on their legal fight against the callous Coalition government’s proposed closure of ILF.

While Conservative MPs around the country continue to churn out platitudes that their party will protect the ’most vulnerable’ the reality of what their ministers are actually doing is far different. The loss of the Independent Living Fund will have disastrous consequences for disabled people with high support needs and as DWP and Local Authorities have said will result in people being forced back into care homes or left in danger in their own homes.

How many will have to be abused or die through neglect before society takes this threat seriously enough to say this is a cut too far? Anyone of you could become disabled and need this level of care to keep living in your community or at home with your family and friends. This is not about party politics this is about justice, morality and dignity. It is about the right to continue to have a life worth living if you do become disabled at some point in your life.

All five will appeal the decision handed down in the High Court on April 24th claiming that the government failed to meet its Public Sector Equality Duties when carrying out what they claim was a flawed consultation process.

DWP have previously said that the ILF fund was unsustainable. They fail to clarify as part of the consultation if there will be any guaranteed on-going extra funding devolved to local authorities to take over the additional costs of meeting people’s care and support needs after 2015. Something which could be a slap in the face for already hard pressed Local Authorities whose budgets are already being squeezed by a further 28% and who will have to implement these cuts.

If, like us, you think its wrong that disabled people (8%of the population) bear 29% of all cuts and that disabled people with severest needs (2% of the whole population) bear 15% of all cuts[i]-

Please support the five and write to your MP to say this is a cut too far.

Find your MP

________________________________________
[i] ‘A Fair Society?’ Centre for Welfare Reform, January 2013

The legal challenge to the Government decision to close the Independent Living Fund

 ILF, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges  No Responses »
Apr 242013
 

R (Bracking) and Others v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions

The legal challenge to the Government decision to close the Independent Living Fund

 

This claim for judicial review was brought by five disabled claimants to challenge the decision of the DWP to close the Independent Living Fund in 2015. The fund has been in existence since 1988 and provides grants to severely disabled people to enable them to live independently.  The ILF enables disabled people to control the way they use the funds and currently provides support to almost 20,000 of the most severely disabled adults in the country. Many ILF users receive some support from local authorities to help with their basic care needs but also receive funding from the ILF that enables them to live more independently.  Some only receive funding from the ILF.

 

In 2010 the fund was temporarily closed to new users and in December 2010, without any consultation, the Government announced that the fund would remain permanently closed to new applicants. It also announced that it would carry out a formal consultation on the future of the ILF in 2012.

 

The consultation ran from July to October 2012. This claim was started before the consultation ended. The Claimants argued that the consultation itself was unlawful. The main reasons were: (1) that the consultation paper did not give enough information for people to be able to comment fully; and (2) that the DWP had not properly assessed the impact of closure on those disabled people who were currently receiving ILF support.

 

The consultation paper proposed that ILF funds would be ‘devolved’ to local authorities after 2015 so that the people currently receiving ILF support would, in future, be assessed and supported by social services departments and only receive funding for care from them.  However, it did not say how much funding would be ‘devolved’ or if the funding would be ring-fenced (to ensure that it was spent on supporting adults with care needs).  Further, it did not give enough information about the way social services assess and support disabled people.

 

The DWP also said that it could not assess the impact on disabled people until after the consultation had ended.  It said that it would publish a full impact assessment when it made its final decision.  The Claimants argued that this was unlawful and that the DWP had enough information to carry out a broad assessment of the impact and to set this out at the beginning of the consultation.

 

Under the Equality Act 2010 public bodies, including government departments, must have “due regard” to certain equality principles when it makes decisions and develops policies. This is the “public sector equality duty” and it applies when decisions and policies are likely to affect a group of people with a protected characteristic.  Disability is a protected characteristic.   Under this duty, public bodies

 

must have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity for disabled people. This duty has three elements: the need to remove or minimize disadvantages suffered by disabled people, the need to take steps to meet their special needs and the need to encourage disabled people to participate in public life.

 

Because of how important the ILF has been in the lives of those it has supported, and particularly the way it has enabled severely disabled adults to live independent lives and to undertake education and training, to work and to play a full part in their communities, the Claimants argued that there was a very strong duty on the DWP to take steps to find out how the proposal would affect ILF users and other disabled people. The Claimants’ case was that the DWP had acted unlawfully in failing to do this.

 

After the claim had been issued the Government announced, in December 2012, that it had decided to close the fund.  It also made clear that whatever funding may be ‘devolved’ to local authorities would not be ring-fenced.1 The claim was therefore amended to challenge not only the consultation process but also the decision to close the fund. The challenge was still focused on the process of the decision- making: the failure to consult lawfully and the breach of the public sector equality duty when making the final decision.

 

During the proceedings, the Claimants discovered a number of things that had not been made clear in the consultation:

 

  • other options, such as postponing closure until after 2015 had been considered;

 

  • the DWP had estimated the costs of closure at £39 million;

 

  • that one, central, reason for recommending the closure of the ILF was that the money currently spent by the ILF on the support packages for its users would be unlikely to be available to the DWP after 2015.

 

So, although the DWP had presented the decision as being purely about reform and streamlining the way funding was to be distributed, in reality, this was about cutting the funds available to support disabled people. The Claimants argued that this should have been made clear in the consultation.

 

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission intervened in the case to advise the court on how the public sector equality duty should have been discharged by the

 

 

1 In the Government’s published response to the consultation it was stated that “in their response to the consultation, most local authorities said they would be strongly opposed to a ring fence around this funding” but this was completely untrue. Not one of the local authority responses obtained by the Claimants under the Freedom of Information Act expressed opposition to ring fencing; 33 out of 80 were in favour of ring-fencing or suggested it should be considered and several authorities expressing qualified support indicated that their position depended on whether the funding would be ring fenced. The rest made no comment about ring fencing.

 

DWP.  In their submissions, it was pointed out that the public sector equality duty is part of how the Government meets its international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

 

The judge heard argument for one and a half days and decided that the DWP had carried out an adequate consultation and had not breached the public sector equality duty: he dismissed the claim.  A written copy of the judgment is available on the websites of the solicitors instructed: Deighton Pierce Glynn at www.deightonpierceglynn.co.uk and Scott-Moncrieff & Associates at www.scomo.com.

 

The judgment fails to explain the judge’s reasons for reaching the conclusions he did or to set out the evidence he relied on to reach those conclusions.  The judgment is therefore hard to follow.  In relation to the consultation process, the judge specifically found that there was enough information for people to engage in the process in a meaningful way.  He also decided that the information that had not been provided (about the costs and reasons for closing the ILF) did not make a significant enough difference to the consultation exercise to make it unlawful, though these would have been important issues for people to comment on.

 

In relation to the public sector equality duty, the judge decided that this had been brought to the attention of the Minister for Disabled People and therefore the duty had been met. He referred to a number of documents and information available at the time the Minister was making the decision.  However, none of these explained the duty properly or gave the Minister enough information to consider the specific elements of the duty set out above.

The Claimants are therefore seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Claimants are not just seeking to preserve the ILF for the existing users but want

the ILF to continue and for all young disabled adults to be able to apply so that they

can be supported to live independent lives.  It is with this goal in mind that they wish to pursue their legal challenge further: to ask the Court of Appeal to quash the decision that the ILF should close and to force the Government to think again about how it funds care for severely-disabled people so they can maintain their independence throughout their lives.

 

 

 

For further information (solicitors representing the Claimants): Deighton Pierce Glynn (Louise Whitfield)

8 Union Street

London SE1 1SZ                                   Tel:  020 7407 0007

 

Scott-Moncrieff & Associates (Diane Astin/Kate Whittaker) Office 7, 19 Greenwood Place

London NW5 1LB                                Tel: 020 7485 5588/ 07792 700825

Claimants to appeal High Court decision concerning closure of the Independent Living Fund

 ILF, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges  2 Responses »
Apr 242013
 

The Court of Appeal will be asked to over-turn the decision of the High Court in the judicial review brought by five service-users of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) of the Government’s decision to close ILF in March 2015. In its judgment handed down today, the court held that the consultation process concerning the closure had been lawful and that the DWP had met the public sector equality duty when deciding to go ahead.  All five claimants have begun an appeal against this ruling.

 

ILF provides vital support and funding to some 20,000 severely-disabled people in the UK to enable them to live independent and fulfilling lives.  The closure of the Fund will threaten their right to live with dignity and in many cases, their ability to work. The Claimants, represented by Deighton Pierce Glynn and Scott-Moncrieff & Associates, fear that without ILF funding and support, they may be forced into residential care or may end up unable to leave their homes.

 

The Claimants’ concerns over the consultation process relate to the failure by the DWP to explain the proposals properly: there was insufficient information to enable consultees to respond in a meaningful way. In addition, further information came to light as a result of the claim which revealed the DWP had not been open and candid in its approach to the consultation exercise.  The judge dismissed these points as having no impact on the lawfulness of the consultation exercise.

 

The public sector equality duty required the Minister for Disabled People to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity for disabled people but there was no evidence that she had specifically considered these issues when deciding to close the ILF and the impact this would have on disabled people. In its ruling, the court did not explain how it reached the conclusion that the Minister had met the statutory duty in the specific way required.

 

The Claimants therefore intend to pursue their appeal on the basis that the judge’s conclusions did not reflect the evidence before the court and that the reasons for ruling that the process was lawful were not properly set out. All five are adamant that the process was flawed and that the impact of closure will be devastating for very large numbers of severely-disabled people.  They see it as vital that the decision is quashed and the matter reconsidered on a fair and lawful basis.

 

Contact:

Solicitors representing the Claimants: Deighton Pierce Glynn (Louise Whitfield)

8 Union Street

London SE1 1SZ                                 Tel: 020 7407 0007

 

 

Scott-Moncrieff & Associates (Diane Astin/Kate Whittaker) Office 7, 19 Greenwood Place

London NW5 1LB                              Tel: 020 7485 5588/ 07792 700825

How the Big Disability Charities Let Down Disabled People … again

 All Posts, ILF, Independent Living, legal challenges, News  3 Responses »
Mar 272013
 

An important recent post on Disabled People Against Cuts’ (DPAC) website reveals how the big disability charities once again let down the very people they claim to support by being indifferent at best to the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF).

As the name suggests, the fund is designed to support the most severely disabled people in living independent lives.  In a chilling sign of what was to come, less than two months after this Government weren’t elected it was closed to new applications.  Funding is now being devolved to local councils, who will have no legal duty to maintain the support offered under the scheme.  All ILF claims are planned to end by 2015.

The closure of the fund has met fierce opposition from grassroots campaigners such as Disabled People Against Cuts and Black Triangle.  Documents recently revealed in a high court appeal against the fund’s closure reveal it has been met by little more than apathy from the major disability organisations.

The documents show that the DWP recognise “that upon reassessment by LA’s (Local Authorities) most users are likely to see some reduction in the current funding levels, and there are a group of users with low care needs that may not be eligible for local authority support under current needs thresholds in most LA’s.’”

Despite this – according to the DWP at least – Mencap (highest paid earner £190,000 pa*), The MS Society, and Scope (highest paid earner £140,000) all supported the closure of the scheme, although Scope’s support was weak and they showed ‘concern’.  RNIB (highest paid earner £140,000) disagreed with the closure of the fund, but this disagreement was summed up as ‘weak concern’ by the DWP.  Only Disability Wales and Inclusion Scotland are mentioned as strongly disagreeing with the closure.

Charities will no doubt argue with the DWP’s assessment of their indifference to disabled people’s lives, however for once it seems the department may be telling the truth (stop laughing).  The documents point out:  “none of the largest national disability organisations requested ministerial meetings and many did not submit responses to the consultation. While we have had an increasing number of letters from MPs on users’ behalf, the proposal to close the fund has received almost no attention in the mainstream media.”

DPAC themselves have requested several meetings with ministers over the closure of the fund.  All requests were ignored.

With thanks to the excellent Johnny Void see more brilliance at: http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/author/johnnyvoid/

Follow  on twitter @johnnyvoid

 

Barnet Spring“If you don’t fight back, you don’t get anywhere” – interview with Philip Rackham

 Action, All Posts, legal challenges, local groups, Politics, Resources  1 Response »
Mar 272013
 

phillipDisabled activists are at the forefront of the campaign in Barnet to stop the sell off of public services to private companies. Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) brings together a wide section of the community to fight privatisation. Last week Maria Nash was in the high court taking a legal challenge against Barnet Council’s failure to adequately consult or pay due regard to the impact of outsourcing Council services to Capita for a period of ten years. On Saturday 20th March disabled campaigners led the ‘Barnet Spring’ march (ironically through a blizzard of snow).

Philip Rackham, Chair of Barnet Centre for Independent Living, is a key member of the campaign and sat through the three day court hearing in support of Maria.

Why do think campaigning is important?

I’m a fighter. I was abused mentally, emotionally, physically by my Mum. She told me she wished I’d never been born. I used to think am I worth it? But I know I am now. I got away from my Mum and I’ve had my own flat for eleven years. I was married for five years to Suzy. When we got together her Mum didn’t think I could look after her but I did. I used to carry her up the steps to her flat. She died and I miss her like anything. But I keep fighting.

Why did you get involved with BAPS?

I’ve lived in Barnet all my life. Cuts put disabled people down. They’re trying to cut my care package. That’s not right. I sat through the court case. It was difficult, I found it heavy. I have learning difficulties see? But you have to do it. If you don’t fight back, you don’t get anywhere.

Tell us something about yourself

I’m a joker. How many seconds in a year? Twelve: second of January, second of February, second of March…

 

To find out more about BAPS go to:

www.barnetalliance.org

Or follow the campaign on twitter: @barnetalliance

Summary of Secret Correspondence from the DWP to McVey on the ILF Closure

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, DisabilityCharityWatch, Europe, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, Politics, Social Model, Welfare reforms  6 Responses »
Mar 232013
 

In the court case taken by five disabled people against the proposed closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) , and supported by a campaign led by DPAC and Inclusion London certain documents were used. These documents are mainly correspondence between civil servants at the Government’s Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) and the minister for disabled people: Esther McVey.

These documents were released and declassified after the court case because they had been mentioned in the case. This is a summary of those documents.

Early analysis of responses to the consultation on ILF Closure (undated)

This document gives a breakdown of responses and several points for McVey to take into account. First, the consultation asked:

Question 1Do you agree with the Government’s proposal that the care and support needs of current ILF users should be met within the mainstream care and support system, with funding devolved to local government in England and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales?[1] This would mean the closure of the ILF in 2015.

 

Question 2What are the key challenges that ILF users would face in moving from joint ILF/Local Authority to sole Local Authority funding of their care and support needs? How can any impacts be mitigated?

 

Question 3What impact would the closure of the ILF have on Local Authorities and the provision of care and support services more widely? How could any impacts be mitigated?

 As we see never were questions asked on extending the ILF or keeping it open. In fact question 1 is what is called a ‘leading question’

In the documents DWP tell McVey:

       ‘As we expected with the current challenges facing the care and support system, the majority of ILF users are opposed to closure of the fund, with many doing so on the basis that there could be no guarantee that their current level of funding would be protected in the future’

and….

           ‘A range of smaller national and local disability groups expressed similar concerns with our proposal. Some have been able to support the closures in principle but usually conditional on current user awards being protected as part of ring-fenced funding. The most vocal group has been the relatively new Disabled People against Cuts, DPAC. This group has taken a very strong critical position on a range of DWP policies’.

Yes we have and both Miller (our old mister for disabled people) and McVey refused to meet us and ILF users several times-in fact they didn’t even bother to respond to these requests!

We were very surprised to see this section advising McVey:

           ‘The consultation exercise has been immensely useful and we have been satisfied that we have listened to a collection of views that is representative of all those individuals or organisations that have an interest in or may be impacted by closure and devolution and have considered whether to modify the preferred position set out in the consultation in light of those views’ (emphasis added)

Amazing! Because if most said : keep it open, and if most said people would lose support or enter institutions, including responses from local authorities: what exactly did they listen to?

The documents recognize that ILF users will see a drop in support with some not being eligible for support at all

             ‘We do recognise that upon reassessment by LA’s most users are likely to see some reduction in the current funding levels, and there are a group of users with low care needs that may not be eligible for local authority support under current needs thresholds in most LA’s.’

The cost of closure will be £39 million! One document states that some of this has been achieved by the savings from closing ILF to new users in 2010. But closure cannot be publically defined as value for money-indeed!

        ‘The transfer costs mean that this proposal will cost rather than save money and therefore it cannot be defined as value for money. However the transfer costs are fully affordable’.

Not to ILF users they aren’t!

And wouldn’t £39 million, plus transfer cost be better put into ILF? Of course that’s not what they want to do, in spite of a consultation exercise where the majority appeared to say a resounding NO to closure.

Why did the DWP think it would Easy to Close the ILF?

One of the reasons given that the DWP found it so easy to close the ILF to new users in 2010 was the lack of any objections from the ‘big disability organisations’ which DWP call ‘Major Departmental Stakeholder Responses’ whatever that is.

In terms of the announcement of proposed closure in 2015 it was noted that none of these ‘stakeholders’ had requested a meeting with ministers from Westminster. Basically most had kept quiet, and hadn’t seen the closure of ILF as any big deal. Great support guys!

On this basis the DWP tell McVey in another document around the potential announcement of the closure in 2015

         ‘on the basis of attention shown so far, we do not think this will   receive  significant attention on its own…’

Guess they forgot about that vocal group DPAC and Deaf and Disabled Peoples’ Organisation: Inclusion London, because the closure of the ILF has now received significant attention in the UK and in Europe, at European Parliamentary level through MEPs and at UN level and we’ll make sure this continues.

Neither DPAC nor Inclusion London has the millions for campaigning that the big disability charities have, nor dedicated media, press and campaign teams. But we do have passion, and we do care about what happens to us all as disabled people, and we care what happens to independent living. ILF users taking the case and supporting the case have appeared on TV, on radio and in newspapers to get the message across that ILF is important and this will continue too.

Any journalists that want to know more or run stories can contact: mail@dpac.uk.net

So what did these so called ‘stakeholders’ say in response to the consultation? According to the DWP, there was not enough resistance at all.

In the early analysis document those who the DWP define as key stakeholders are broken down and their responses analysed. Below is what DWP said of their ‘Major Departmental Stakeholder Responses’ in the exact words of the DWP to McVey

 Carers UK-Weakly Disagree

-User packages would be reduced placing extra demand on unpaid care

Disability Rights UK-Concerned

-Lack of choice and flexibility under Local Authorities (Las)

-User packages will be reduced

-Poor perception and past support of Las

-Difficult for ILF users to transition easily

 Disability Wales- Strongly Disagree

-users packages would be reduced which could make it impossible to support ILF users in a family environment

-since the 2010 closure of the fund to applicants disabled people have had to start entering residential care.

-believes the government is targeting the disabled for cuts

-LAs could not cope with the additional workload

-Lack of choice, flexibility and dignity for ILF users under LAs

-Do not believe transitional protection will be offered

 Inclusion Scotland-Strongly Disagree

-The proposal would create a postcode lottery of support

-User packages would be reduced

-LA support is budget led rather than needs led

-ILF expertise would be lost

-Lack of choice and flexibility under LAs

 MENCAP-Pragmatic Agreement

-If reforms go ahead they should be about finding a better system, not cutting costs

-Funding should be allocated to LAs as a separate ring fenced funding stream based on current ILF regional spending patterns in which current users enjoy time-limited protection

-need for Government to provide advice and information to all parties

 MS Society- Concerned Agreement

-Consolidation of funding streams would simplify the care system

-The proposal should not be enacted until the impact of current welfare reform is understood

-Lack of choice, flexibility and dignity for ILF users under LAs needs to be addressed

-LAs need as far as possible, to replicate the personalised expertise of ILF

-Representative groups need to be closely involved in the transition design

 RNIB-Weak Concern

-Concerned that closure might lead to a breach of article 19 on UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

-Representative groups must be closely involved in transition design

-Current levels of support must be maintained

 SCOPE-Concerned Weak Agreement

 -Consolidation of funding streams would simplify the care system

-The proposal should not be enacted during current funding constraints

-The mainstream care and support system needs more experience and commitment to independent living to be able to undertake the responsibilities of the ILF

 Spinal Injuries Association-Disagree

 -Funding is likely to disappear into wider LA budgets on transfer

-ILF is more efficient than LAs

 

‘Rights not Charity’ seems very apt as the major charities for disabled people appeared to agree with the closure, after all more institutionalisation of disabled people might benefit them mightn’t it?  Disability Rights UK (DRUK) a so called user-led organisation incorporating, but clearly forgetting the principles of National Centre for Independent Living, did not offer more than ‘concern’.  The Spinal Injuries Association ‘disagreed’ but what this needed was for all to come out and say ‘Strongly Disagree’ as Disability Wales and Inclusion Scotland did.

 Remember that when the charities ask you for money, remember that when those groups that didn’t come out fully against the closure of the ILF say they are on the side of disabled people or are working for disabled people: we believe they can no longer justify either of those statements.

 The DWP told McVey that ‘stakeholders’ (SCOPE, DRUK etc)

‘..have traditionally found it hard to defend the ILF model of funding care..’

‘none of the largest national disability organisations requested ministerial meetings and many did not submit responses to the consultation. While we have had an increasing number of letters from MPs on users’ behalf, the proposal to close the fund has received almost no attention in the mainstream media’ (correspondence to McVey 7th November 2012)

We will work through more of the documents looking at issues on transition, and the DWP’s media strategy which is unsurprisingly at odds with any issues raised by disabled people-you know the stuff Closure of ILF will give ‘choice and control’ , ‘committed to supporting disabled people’ blah, blah, blah.

The big difference here is that it is clear from the documents  that the DWP are perfectly aware that ILF users will lose funding and that their needs won’t be adequately met through the local authority system.

Cuts versus Reform

Finally, the DWP were keen to try and put the message out that the closure of the ILF was not about ‘cuts’ but about ‘reform’ –what’s the difference? They do appear to believe that if they say reform we all think this is a good thing, rather than identifying that everything that comes under the heading of reform is actually another cut.

The documents cannot be clearer: this is a cut

A cut to the dignity, life chances and lives of disabled people-not just those who are currently supported to lead independent lives through ILF , but also those who would have qualified before closure to new applicants in 2010 and all who could benefit from the ILF system in the future

Support ILF users now; support a better future-say no to the closure of the ILF!

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Funding for ILF users in Northern Ireland is currently the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development, not the Department for Work and Pensions.

ILF court case – update and implications (now with video)

 All Posts, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, News  4 Responses »
Mar 172013
 

If you’re an ILF user and not already part of the ILF campaign group please email us your contact details at mail@dpac.uk.net

 Video from outside courts March 13th thanks to Shaun
 Reel News http://reelnews.co.uk

Dear All,

Firstly – well done us ! Great turn out on Wednesday and despite a new Pope
(!) we got some media coverage which I think we can definitely build on.

Key points from court case:

Regardless of whether we win or not (ruling likely end of April and I think
we have a very good chance) some potentially explosive stuff came out from
internal dwp documents that are now in the public domain namely:

· The dwp think its unlikely that there will be any funding for ilf
users after 2016. It looks like they are thinking of a year’s – non ring
fenced – additional transition money for LA for 2015-16 (to sugar the pill
as the judge put it) but then nothing.
· There is an internal paper that says we have to keep up the narrative that this is about reform not
cuts !
· The dwp estimate the cost of closure and transition to be £39
million!!
· The dwp barrister took an absolutely disgraceful line of defence
trying to say that the closure was not based on money but on desire for
equity between non ilf users and ilf users – ie ILF users have more so we
need to take that away so they are in the same situation as non ilf users.

Implications for our campaigning:

As I said regardless of the judges decision we need to use the dwp
documentation in our campaign from now on – its explosive evidence that
completely supports our position that this is a) about a cut and b) ilf
users will have their support cut with all the devastating consequences we
have been saying. These documents also reveal just how cynical the dwp have
been ie by admitting they need to pretend its about reform and not cuts.

The dwp ammo we will now have should help us really pile on the pressure
with Cllrs and MPs – both in substance of what’s been revealed ie likely no
funding post 2016 but also how the dwp have gone about this. Given this is a
cut targeted at 20,000 disabled people with highest support needs I think
this could be potentially extremely politically embarrassing – if we play it
right.

I think we also have a real chance to re-start lobbying and campaigning with
Local Authorities: its clear now that the govt intention is to devolve
responsibility to LA’s but not any funding to meet these responsibilities .
Now this is in the open I think we could have a real chance of getting some
LA’s on our side – particularly Lab ones.

Finally, some ILF users have done a great job in getting SCOPE to finally come out in support. We need to continue to put pressure on them because another DWP internal paper mentioned in court said (to paraphrase) we got away with the closure to new applicants in 2010 and the major disability charities are not interested in defending ilf . This should shame them into coming out in support.

Despite how shocking the info revealed in court has been we need to take
heart that we are right: right to campaign to save the ilf and right that
this is about cuts and nothing else.

So we need to start planning our campaign with this new info so we are ready
for decision at end of April.

 Posted by at 15:20  Tagged with:

Bethan Tichborne: ‘Cameron has blood on his hands’

 Action, legal challenges  5 Responses »
Mar 162013
 

Beth was convicted for the crime of voicing dissent to David Cameron’s vicious attack on disabled people. She was fined £745 including costs – more than what she makes in a month. An appeal was raised to help her towards the fine and she has decided to donate the rest to DPAC. Many thanks! Reposted with permission from Beth. p/s Bethan needs to raise money still for her appeal – see how below.

blood on Cameron's hands

March 13th 2013

Today I was found guilty in the Oxford Magistrates’ Court of causing “harassment, alarm and distress” following a peaceful and legal political protest in Witney in December. The judge said “I can think of nothing more alarming than the statement that ‘Cameron has blood on his hands.’” I will continue to say that Cameron has blood on his hands, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

 

30 people have died as a direct result of the government’s ‘welfare reforms’. Thousands have died after being found ‘fit for work’. Over the long term, as more and more is taken away there will be increasing harm and death, including many hidden ones. The fine and costs come to more than I earn in a month, the judge said that on a whole £700 a month of course I’d have no trouble paying it back. After rent, travel to work, food and paying off loans I don’t have money left at the end of the month, and my salary is going down soon, so I’m not sure what will happen next. Except that I’m going to keep saying that Cameron has blood on his hands.

 

Here’s some notes I wrote earlier on what happened:

 

On the 30th November David Cameron was booed as he came on stage to turn on the Witney Christmas Lights. You can watch a very funny video of him(at 5.58) trying to drown out any criticism by awkwardly getting the crowd to cheer everyone from themselves to the Queen here -

 

When there’s some background heckling during the countdown he appeals to the crowd to “come on, shout louder!”Kind of funny. Also, kind of not funny.

 

I find it very weird watching the video, because while this was going on I was being beaten up by the police on the other side of the stage. I have never been so scared. My face was being pushed into the ground, I could feel blood coming from my nose, there was someone putting their whole weight on my back while someone else was stamping on my knees, along with various people grabbing and twisting my limbs. And then the officer on my back moved a knee up onto the back of my neck. Up until then I’d been shouting “I’m not resisting, I’m cooperating,” trying to ask them to stop, but from the moment I felt someone pressing their body weight into the back of my neck I gave up trying to communicate anything to them, I realised the police officers on top of me either couldn’t or wouldn’t hear me. Instead I began begging anyone who was nearby to intervene, to tell them to stop. Images flashed into my mind of what could happen. I was in pain, I couldn’t see what was going on, I was crying and bleeding, I couldn’t properly breathe, and I thought that they might leave me seriously injured. I’ve worked supporting people who’ve badly damaged their necks or back, and I can’t believe that any police officer was taught that kneeling on the back of someone’s neck is every an acceptable thing to do.

 

So that was one of the background sounds that Cameron was trying to drown out with his calls for round after round of applause. One of the things Cameron asked the crowd to cheer was “the Paralympics, that was great.” Well yes, the paralympics was great, but he should remember that his ministers were booed loudly whenever they appeared at paralympic ceremonies, and that it had the least popular sponsor possible, ATOS. The government gave ATOS the contract to kick disabled people off benefits they need to survive, and despite some of its staff quitting on grounds of conscience, they’ve done an admirable job of swiping those benefits away.To rub salt into the wound the government justify their cuts with misleading press releases about what percentage of disabled people they’ve deemed “fit for work.” These are taken up by the press, who spin them still further from reality and stir up public hatred of “scroungers” and “shirkers”. A survey by Inclusion London found that the general public believe that between 50% and 70% of disability claims are fraudulent. The reality is that the fraud rate for disability benefits is 0.5%. [Inclusion London]

 

The words that the government and media are using is the indirect part of their attack on disabled people. Disability hate crime, which ranges from comments in the street through vandalism of motability cars up to imprisonment, torture, rape and murder (yes, in the UK, this happens) is growing.  A Comres study found that 66% of disabled people in September 2011 said they experienced aggression, hostility or name calling compared with 41% in May 2011. That’s a huge increase in a short amount of time. I knew about this through hearing and reading stories about the people who are being affected, I also knew that these stories weren’t being given the front page spreads that ‘scrounger’ stories get. I think it’s important to show that some of us are refusing to buy the rhetoric that would have us scapegoat disabled people. So I held up a placard that said “Cameron has blood on his hands,” and I shouted that “disabled people are dying because of Cameron’s policies.” I didn’t expect that to be a big deal, I only wanted to do my bit to show that we’re not all taken in by the rhetoric that disabled people are ‘scroungers’ and ‘shirkers.’ I didn’t think that it would lead to being beaten up, arrested, held overnight and then taken to court on two ridiculous charges.

 

Since December there has been a little more attention slowly coming to focus on the horrific way that this government is treating disabled people. MP Micheal Meacher told the House of Commons that Cameron has blood on his hands (he didn’t get arrested). We’ve heard more about how the bedroom tax is going to hit disabled people. But still, there’s very little media coverage of the disability campaigners who are also in court today, in London, challenging the cut of the Independent Living Fund, which will force people into residential homes? We had a huge amount of coverage of one large family getting one large council house. Where are the front page stories about the far more common experiences of people who are losing their independence, their ability to meet their basic needs, even their houses? Where are the front page stories about the people who have killed themselves, seeing no other option as the support they need is pulled away from under them? There are now 30 cases listed on the website Calum’s List, a memorial site for those who have died because of the welfare reforms, either through suicide or through ill health and hardship. Aren’t any of those 30 people as newsworthy as one large family getting a large house? We must do what the mainstream media will not, and resist the government’s attempt to divide and rule.

 

We can listen to the voices of the people who know what’s going on, the people on the frontline of the cuts, and share them with our friends - Calum’s List is hard reading, but important. It lists the deaths caused directly by welfare reform. dpac.uk.net – Disabled People Against Cuts campaign tirelessly, provide an endless amount of information and analysis, and receive hardly any media coverage, or even the recognition they deserve from the wider anti-cuts movement – the Black Triangle Campaign tells it just how it is, read their about page, read some of their blog posts, and you get a sense of just how violent the government’s two-pronged attack on disabled people is, and how dangerous it is for the rest of society to stay silent.

Continue to donate money for her appeal at the Bright Green website

 

VIGIL TO SAVE THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FUND 13th March London

 Action, All Posts, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, media, News, Speeches, Welfare reforms  6 Responses »
Mar 112013
 

 

DPAC Logo 3 amendment 1 (Small) IL logo

 

VIGIL TO SAVE THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FUND

AND OUR RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT LIVING

March 13th 2013 – from 12.30pm

Outside front entrance Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Speakers: Linda Burnip (DPAC co-founder), Tracey Lazard, (CEO Inclusion London)

Writers/performers Sophie Partridge and Penny Pepper to read from their new script highlighting the impact of the ILF closure

Six disabled people who receive support funded by the Independent Living Fund (ILF) will take on the DWP in the High Court on 13th and 14th March to challenge the government consultation which proposed to close it.

The ILF was set up in 1988 to support disabled people with the highest levels of support need to live in the community. Since then it has helped thousands to live active and full lives.

The government decision to close the Independent Living Fund and instead devolve responsibility to local authorities follows a consultation that disabled people claim is unlawful.

Whereas support received through the ILF has transformed thousands of lives, local authorities are not able to provide the same level or range of support through their current systems. With central funding to local authorities being cut this can only get worse.

Join us to show support and solidarity to those disabled people taking the legal challenge on an issue that is importance to everyone who cares about social justice and the rights of disabled people to live independently, equally and with dignity.

Speakers will include Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, Tracey Lazard, Chief executive of Inclusion London and many disabled people who are personally affected by the closure of the Independent Living Fund. Writer/performers and ILF users Sophie Partridge and Penny Pepper will read from their new script developed to highlight the importance of the Fund.

You can listen to how this vicious attack will affect disabled people at these links:

http://www.dpac.uk.net/2013/02/a-nasty-cut-people-affected-by-the-closure-of-the-independent-l5142/

For more information about the vigil contact: mail@dpac.uk.net

Attached information about the location of the High Courts and about accessible toilets in the area.

 Map courts

 Royal Courts of Justice

Strand,

London WC2A 2LL

 Travel: the tube stations around the Royal Courts are not accessible (nearest accessible tubes are Westminster and London Bridge and both are a bus journey away).

Please check www.tfl.gov.uk for more travel information

 Accessible toilets around the royal courts:

-         There is an accessible toilet outside Embankment tube station and inside Charing Cross station.

-         There are toilets opposite the Royal Courts but these are not accessible

-         There are also accessible toilets inside the Royal Courts themselves – see page 10 of this booklet: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/rcj/facilities-and-access/Facilitiesservicesleaflet2011.pdf

Make SCOPE work for you

 All Posts, ILF, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, News, Social Model, Welfare reforms  No Responses »
Mar 032013
 
We urgently need people to email Scope over the next 2 or 3 days to let them know in no uncertain terms what a disaster the closing of the ILF (Independent Living Fund) will be and that their attitude not to oppose this as they don’t have enough money to campaign on everything is unacceptable.
 
Also we need Scope to be made aware their own inaction in not campaigning with regards to the ILF closure is totally unacceptable from a major Charity who claim to be at all interested in the rights of disabled people. (apologies if this makes you all fall around laughing).
A representative from Scope is meeting with Government this week to speak for you – so can you email Scope on the contact below to let them know exactly what you think of them and what you expect them to say for you. Be as brief or detailed as you want, but don’t allow SCOPE to sell disabled people out yet again.
 
Email address is campaigns@scope.org.uk and copy to their overpaid CEO richard.hawkes@scope.org.uk
 
Alternatively leave messages for them on their facebook pages
 
 

SAY NO TO THE ENDING OF COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT -February 5th Royal Courts of Justice

 Action, All Posts, Benefits, legal challenges, Welfare reforms  7 Responses »
Feb 022013
 

WINVISIBLE [mailto:win@winvisible.org]
Sent: 02 February 2013 10:57
Subject: Tues 5 Feb: demo to support legal challenge to Haringey cutting
Council Tax Benefit

Dear Friends,

Demonstrate with us to support a  legal challenge to Haringey Council cutting
Council Tax Benefit
Royal Courts of Justice (High Court), Strand London WC2A 2LL
Tuesday 5 February 9.45am – 11am
10.30am: some people will go into court

Please come and support this important legal challenge to stop the Council
charging Council Tax to people on benefit – see email below from Rev Paul
Nicolson, Taxpayers Against Poverty.

Alex Rook, specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, who is
representing local residents in Haringey, said: “Our client is a single
mother and she is simply not going to be able to make these payments.”

Residents in other boroughs are also hoping to join the legal challenges.

Did you know:
- Nationally,  those who will be most disadvantaged by this change
are in waged work, including single parents (92% mothers)
who work part-time and those of us on minimum wage who depend on childcare.
We will face a hike of up to £577 a year in Council Tax.
- Some Councils, such as Tory-led Kensington and Chelsea, have
decided to keep the 100% Council Tax Benefit, and instead charge 2nd-home
owners to make up the gap in government funding, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21276091
- Families with young children, sick and disabled people, young
unemployed people, other vulnerable groups should rightly be protected –
but some Councils, such as Camden, have decided to charge Council Tax
contributions from everyone of working age regardless of their circumstances.
- More national info
http://www.channel4.com/news/council-tax-benefit-cuts-the-key-questions
- More about the Haringey challenge
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/21/council-tax-blow-people-benefits

Winning this challenge will set a precedent against all Councils planning to
cut Council Tax Benefit

See you there!

WINVISIBLE

PS: We have been working with the mother of Daniel Roque Hall – a severely
disabled man who was nearly killed by Wormwood Scrubs prison’s neglect. The
High Court is hearing his appeal on Tuesday so there will be a second
demonstration outside the court. A number of us will be involved in both.
See separate email.

_____

 Posted by at 19:52

Update on WCA judicial review

 All Posts, Benefits, legal challenges, News  10 Responses »
Jan 192013
 

In case anyone hasn’t seen this on the MHRN facebook page: 

HOW THE JUDICIAL REVIEW WENT!

The judicial review was scheduled for three days although we thought that it would only last for two. In the event, it lasted for the whole three days and there was a member of the MHRN in court at all times.

The claimants were asking that further medical evidence should be sought by the DWP from a person’s own health care professionals prior to the ESA50 form being sent out for all people with mental health problems (called MHPs in court). We believe that obtaining evidence at this stage will enable some people to be spared the distress of having to attend the face to face WCA interview and, where they do have to attend it, at least the assessor would know something about their condition and how it affects their functionality rather than the claimant being entirely at the mercy of the Atos computer and an unqualified Atos ‘Health Care Professional’. This in turn might spare some people from going through the misery of having to appeal. And, importantly, it would help identify people for whom regulations 29 and 35 apply. These regulations cover where there would be a risk to a person if they were found fit for work or for work related activity even if they had less than the required number of points for ESA.

Obviously this change is only one way that the WCA needs to be improved on. Initially the MHRN was calling for the test to be completely scrapped but we are also realistic about what can be achieved. Who knows, it may be scrapped in a few years time but, in the meantime, we have to survive it.

Now to the court case.

The case was being brought under the Equality Act and was heard by three judges in the Upper Tribunal Court. It began with much debate about how exactly people with MHPs were being disadvantaged in the process of claiming ESA and the case for the claimants was that the self reporting aspect was often, for a variety of reasons, difficult for people with MHPs. In addition, MHPs may not be able to obtain further medical evidence for themselves. The DWP barrister argued that there was already procedures in place to ensure that further medical evidence was sought in appropriate cases.

As well as the claimants’ barristers there was a barrister representing, jointly, National Mind, Rethink and the National Autistic Society, who also argued the claimants’ case and there was evidence written from consultant psychiatrists. It is hard to say, but, on balance, I felt that the existence of disadvantage may have been successfully established in court, but please, don’t rely on my impression!

A lot of time was spent arguing about who the MHP claimants were being disadvantaged in comparison with. This was very much a technical point and an Equality and Human Rights Commission barrister was present to intervene here.

The claimants were asking that reasonable adjustments are made to rectify a disadvantage (the adjustment being that medical evidence be sought by the DWP in all mental health cases) and therefore the ‘reasonableness’ of this adjustment was also up for debate with the DWP unsurprisingly arguing that it was wholly unreasonable, cost being one factor, the burden on doctors being another, and so on.

So is there a disadvantage and in comparison with whom are MHPs disadvantaged? If there is a disadvantage, would the requested adjustment rectify this disadvantage? And is the adjustment ‘reasonable’?

Obviously, as the case was being brought by individuals, there was some argument over whether the individuals concerned had been disadvantaged and whether the adjustments requested would have rectified that disadvantage. The DWP barrister tried every which way to counter the claimants’ arguments.

The feeling among the members of the MHRN who attended the court was that the claimants got a fair hearing. The judges will be meeting with three high court judges and, I think I got this right, it is these high court judges who will be making the final decision. This will undoubtedly take some time to come through and we have no idea how it will go.

So fingers crossed!

Whatever happens, we’ll never give up!

Disabled people Vs DWP/Atos Judicial Review on WCA Join DPAC Vigil on 16th at 12pm

 Action, All Posts, Atos, Disability Rights, Events, legal challenges, Welfare reforms  10 Responses »
Jan 102013
 

Next week sees 2 disabled people take on the government in a judicial review (1) on the grounds that the process is not accessible for people with mental health conditions.
 
On 15th, 16th & 18th of January lawyers for 2 members of the mental health resistance network
(2) will be in the administrative high court, the division of the royal courts of justice (3) which handles judicial reviews , in London .
The DWP introduced WCAs to assess disabled people for eligibility for disability benefits. Despite criticism from MPs,(4) the British Medical Association (5) and campaigners, this policy rumbles on.
 
Dozens of disabled people are dying every week (6) following assessment. nearly 40% (7) of those who appeal the decision to remove benefits, have the decision overturned, meaning thousands of people are wrongly being put through a traumatic and harrowing experience needlessly. The governments own appointed assessor of the policy has ruled it ‘unfit for purpose’ .
 
This isn’t good enough. This would not be acceptable in any other government contract, yet goes without comment or sanction by this government. No-one is called to account, no-one takes responsibility.
 
DPAC and MHRN call on ALL activists and supporters to join them in a vigil outside the court to show your support for those taking the case, and your disgust at this shameful and harmful policy.
 
Action is :
 
Weds 16th January
@ 12pm
Royal courts of justice, the strand, London wc2a 2ll.
 
Send a strong, clear signal to those who make the decisions.
 
We are NOT going away, we are not backing down. There is no hiding place.
 
We will fight you in parliament, on the streets and in the courts!
 
ENDS
 
p.s send messages of support to Mentalhealthresistance@lists.aktivix.org or mail@dpac.uk.net
 
1.http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/2012/07/26/judicial-review-of-work-capability-assessment-granted/
2. mentalhealthresistance.org
3. http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/administrative-court
4. http://www.disabilitywales.org/1168/3817
5. http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/gps-vote-to-end-the-atos-farce/
6. http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html
7. http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20120817

Legal Case against Worcester Council launched- and more legal cases for 2013

 Action, All Posts, Atos, Disability Rights, Independent Living, legal challenges, Welfare reforms  3 Responses »
Dec 302012
 

Earlier this year DPAC highlighted Worcester Council’s ‘maximum expenditure’ policy which would see new applicants for social ‘care’ be part of potential institutionalisation in order to cut costs. Other council’s have announced similiar measures.  The Redditch Standard reports on the case, which shows that disabled people do not need to put up with these measures in silence but have the right and need to fight back at local and national levels. This month the closure of the Independent Living Fund was announced for 2015. This will also be challenged legally by six ILF users early next year. Both measures break aticle 19 on independent living as outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. There will also be legal challenges on the recording of Atos assessments and the Judicial Review on the Work Capability Assessment by the Mental Health Resistance network in 2013.

Details of the Worcester case by Irwin Mitchell can be found here

DPAC will not be resting in any tents in 2013 but fighting with disabled people in the courts, on the streets, online and everywhere we can

DPAC and Inclusion London Press Release on the Closure of the Independent Living Fund

 Action, All Posts, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, News, Welfare reforms  8 Responses »
Dec 212012
 

Disabled people with the highest support needs have been left in fear and distress as they face the prospect of being denied the right to have Christmas in their own homes following a government decision announced this week to abolish a key source of independent living support.

The government decision to close the Independent Living Fund and instead devolve responsibility to local authorities follows a consultation that disabled people claim is unlawful and on which an urgent hearing has been scheduled by the High Court to go ahead on 13/14 March 2013.

Kevin Caulfield Chair Hammersmith & Fulham Coalition against Community Care Cuts said, “The announcement of the closure of the ILF is yet another nail in the coffin of the increasing numbers of disabled people being discarded into isolation, social exclusion, deteriorating health and premature death. This is more evidence that we are so far from being all in this together.”

Whereas support received through the ILF has transformed thousands of lives, local authorities are not able to provide the same level or range of support through their current systems. With central funding to local authorities being cut this can only get worse.

Current ILF recipient Jenny Hurst said she “can’t bear to think of a return to life” without the opportunities the ILF has given her. “Before I was referred for funding from the ILF I received a package of 4 hours a day, one hour for getting me up/showered and breakfasted, one hour for house work and lunch, one hour for supper and an hour to do the “put to bed”. In between times I couldn’t get a drink or use the toilet- let alone do anything meaningful with my life.” With support funded by the ILF she was able to go to university, get a full time job and become a Trustee of a charity.

ILF recipient Anne Novis who received an MBE for services to the community, said ”I employ five PA’s, their jobs will be at risk as I know and have been told I will receive less funds … from my local authority”. She added “I definitely will not be able to contribute to society, have my grandchildren over to stay, or even have a life worth living.”

The government’s decision to push ahead with their plans comes in spite of overwhelming opposition from disabled people and their families. Local Authorities have widely expressed concerns that without ring fencing there will be a loss of support for existing ILF users and for some individuals no option but to go into residential care. Given the current surge of abuse revelations concerning people placed in institutional settings such as those associated with the Winterbourne View case, it is distressing that the government is nevertheless abandoning the right for disabled people who require round the clock support to live in the community in a home of their own and with choice and control over their lives.

Notes to Editors

1)  Inclusion London is a pan-impairment organisation promoting equality for London’s Deaf and disabled people.
2)  Disabled People against Cuts is a national campaign led by disabled people to oppose the attacks on disabled people’s human rights and independent living being carried out under the guise of the austerity agenda.
3)  The Independent Living Fund (ILF) was set up in 1988 to provide the additional funding disabled people needed to live at home when the alternative was residential care.

4)   The Fund which was permanently closed to new applicants in December 2010 will be shut down completely from 31 March 2015.5)   The action by the Westminster government contravenes article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People on independent living and goes against the principle of the Convention as well as against the European Convention on Human Rights
 
For more information:
Ellen Clifford,
Campaigns and Communications Officer
Inclusion London                   Tel: 07505 144371
 
Contact:
ILF recipients:
Kevin Caulfield: 07899 752877; info@hafcac.org.uk
Jenny Hurst: jennyahurst@yahoo.com
 
Solicitors representing the claimants involved in the legal challenge:
Scott-Moncrieff &Associates (Diane Astin/Kate Whittaker)
Office 7, 19 Greenwodd Place
London NW5 1LB   Tel: 020 7485 5588/07792 700825
 
Deighton Pierce Glynn (Louise Whitfield)
8 Union Street
London SE1 1SZ     Tel: 020 7407 0007

 

 Older Entries
http://dpac.uk.net/wp-content/plugins/wp-accessibility/toolbar/css/a11y-contrast.css 14 queries in 1.332 seconds.