Contents
DWP secretly weakened guidance on suicides, one year after public pledge 3
Capita admits sending recording of assessment to wrong claimant 5
Young woman took her own life hours before DWP finally agreed long-delayed PIP claim 7
DWP’s ‘shocking and shameful’ duty of care refusal must be addressed, MPs are told 9
Access to electric vehicle charging-points ‘is treated as inconvenient afterthought’ 13
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 15
Report warned of ‘catastrophic deterioration’ in some disabled people, but ministers still shelved power-cut action
An unfinished government report warned that national power cuts could cause “catastrophic deterioration” in some disabled people who rely on medical equipment in their own homes, but ministers still decided not to draw up plans to protect them.
The “internal scoping paper” considered what advice was available for disabled people who rely on mains-powered medical devices at home and whether there was a need for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to issue its own guidance.
But DHSC decided not to draw up any guidance and to leave it to individual disabled people and their “care teams” to draw up plans for “how they can prepare for and respond to loss of power to their home”.
That conclusion was reached even though the document makes clear that some disabled people could be “at very high risk of catastrophic deterioration” if the power cut was unexpected or continued for longer than their equipment’s batteries lasted.
It also warned of the “significant impact on vulnerable people who rely on the use of medical equipment at home for their health and care” if there were national blackouts.
Only last week, the government’s new Disability Action Plan claimed that “Government departments already consider disabled people’s needs in emergency and resilience planning”.
Those taking part in a consultation on the draft plan told the government “there should be better protection for disabled people in future emergencies”, but the action plan offered no significant new measures that would address the concerns raised in the DHSC scoping paper.
The paper also admitted that there were significant flaws with the system of local priority services registers (PSRs), which are supposed to ensure energy companies provide “enhanced support to their more vulnerable customers”.
It warned that there were “barriers” that prevented many of those eligible from signing up to a PSR.
And the paper warned of “an issue” with understanding how many devices supporting “the more critical conditions” were being used in disabled people’s homes.
It said this information “would be critical to have in the event of planned outages so that the government have a clear idea of the impact and where support is required”.
Despite these concerns and flaws within the emergency planning system, DHSC decided not to draw up any plans to protect disabled people who rely on life-saving medical equipment in their own homes in the event of a significant national power outage.
The DHSC scoping paper – Rolling Power Outages: Medical equipment and vulnerable people – was left unfinished last summer, but it has now been released to Disability News Service (DNS) following a freedom of information request.
It is just the latest attempt by DNS over the last 16 months – in the face of government resistance – to find out what plans ministers have put in place to protect people who rely on equipment such as ventilators, oxygen concentrators and dialysis machines in the event of a major blackout.
The report – significant chunks of which are redacted – admitted that “in a national power outage scenario it would not be possible to notify PSR households pre-emptively” that they were about to lose electricity.
And it also admitted that in a “reasonable worst-case scenario” in at least some types of “national power outage”, services such as providing emergency power to those on the PSR who rely on “at home medical equipment” would “not be available due to the scale and complexity of the outage”.
It stated that the “main critical medical risk relating to devices is if a power cut is unexpected or goes on longer than the internal batteries will last”, with those who depend on their equipment for “breathing, renal function, nutrition/hydration… obviously at very high risk of catastrophic deterioration”.
But despite these risks, it said the “main advice” for “people in vulnerable situations” was to register on a PSR, “speak to their care team/GP to put a plan in place to prepare their devices for an outage” and “take individual responsibility for their own preparedness”, such as making sure they “plan and test any contingency plans for critical medical equipment”.
The scoping paper also warned that it was “not clear” if patients were always given advice on power and batteries when they were first handed their medical device “and whether patients know who to contact if they have issues”.
Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, said: “Evidence to the Covid Public Inquiry clearly shows the absence of government planning during the pandemic in respect of disabled people, as did evidence to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, which led to the recommendation on the need to implement personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people unable to independently exit high-rise buildings.
“In both these instances, failure to plan led to the avoidable deaths of disabled people.
“With this backdrop, it is incomprehensible that government isn’t prepared to act, to save disabled lives in the event of power outages.
“The responsibility for staying alive should not be placed on individual disabled people or even on private sector energy companies; responsibility should squarely fall on public bodies.
“It is for DHSC, NHS trusts and social care to put the processes in place that protect disabled people using life-saving equipment.
“In light of the priority given to emergency planning in the Disability Action Plan, the government needs to urgently review its current policy of inaction before disabled people avoidably die.”
Despite asking DHSC early on Monday afternoon how it justified not taking action to protect disabled people in this situation, and whether this suggested that the Disability Action Plan section on emergency and resilience planning was not fit for purpose, it had not commented by noon today (Thursday).
15 February 2024
DWP secretly weakened guidance on suicides, one year after public pledge
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has secretly weakened its own rules on when it should investigate the deaths of benefit claimants who take their own lives.
Four years ago, the department told the National Audit Office (NAO) that it would always carry out one of its secret reviews when it heard of a claimant’s death if they had died by suicide, even if there were no allegations that DWP’s actions had contributed to that death.
Since then, it has repeatedly insisted that it has “established procedures to investigate and learn lessons” in the “minority” of cases where deaths occur, but Disability News Service (DNS) has now established that it weakened its guidance a year after its pledge to NAO.
New figures obtained by DNS through a freedom of information (FoI) request show that on at least four occasions in 2022-23, the department failed to investigate when told of the suicide of a claimant.
When asked by DNS why these four suicides had not led to an investigation, a DWP spokesperson said the criteria was changed in April 2021, a year after it informed NAO that all suicides of claimants it heard about should lead to an internal process review (IPR) “regardless of whether there are allegations of Department activity contributing to the claimant’s suicide”.
It said the change in 2021 allowed the department to focus on cases where a claimant had died or suffered serious harm where there was also an allegation that DWP’s actions – according to a previous FoI request – “may have negatively contributed to the customer’s circumstances”.
Over the last 15 years, investigations by disabled people’s grassroots groups, journalists, academics and other organisations and campaigners have linked systemic DWP failings with hundreds, and probably thousands, of suicides of claimants.
But this week’s admission suggests that DWP has taken a significant backward step in addressing the serious and continuing risk to the lives of disabled people, particularly those who pass through its disability assessment systems.
And it comes as the Commons work and pensions committee continues an inquiry into “safeguarding vulnerable claimants” (see separate stories).
The FoI request had followed concerns raised last month by Labour’s Debbie Abrahams at a meeting of the committee, when she questioned DWP’s most senior civil servant on figures that showed how 29 requests to carry out an IPR in 2022-23 had been rejected by the department’s IPR team.
All those referrals are believed to have come from DWP civil servants.
Abrahams told Peter Schofield, DWP’s permanent secretary, that the figures suggested his department might not be “really looking at the full scale and issues of the potential harms that are happening”.
IPRs are supposed to “help inform improvement” of DWP’s “capability, culture, behaviour and processes” through an “internal, high quality, investigation that shows where the customer experience has fallen short of expected standards”, and to set out how the department can “minimise future risks”.
Following last month’s committee meeting, DNS submitted a request to DWP’s freedom of information team, asking for details of the 29 IPR referrals that had been rejected.
DWP has now revealed that of those 29 referrals, 18 related to a claimant who had died, and of those 18 deaths, four were believed to be suicides.
Of the 29 referrals, three of the claimants had been receiving disability living allowance, seven had been receiving employment and support allowance, 10 had been receiving personal independence payment, and 15 had been receiving universal credit*.
Of the 15 referrals where a claimant had been receiving universal credit, 11 related to a death, and one had been recorded as a suicide.
Abrahams said: “These latest data provide further evidence of the deep failures in DWP safeguarding.
“That these cases did not lead to IPRs after the government’s commitment that all suicides would be investigated following the 2020 NAO report into DWP claimant suicides is shocking.
“It also demonstrates that the department’s official figures about the deaths of social security claimants are just the tip of the iceberg.
“I’m hopeful that the select committee’s safeguarding inquiry will be a start to addressing the wholly inadequate approach to safeguarding in the government’s Department for Work and Pensions.”
A DWP spokesperson said in a statement: “Anyone taking their own life is tragic and the reasons for this can be very complex.
“The responsibility for determining a person’s cause of death rightfully sits with a doctor or HM Coroner – and DWP has an established channel for coroners to liaise with the department if required.”
*Some claimants will have been receiving more than one benefit
15 February 2024
Capita admits sending recording of assessment to wrong claimant
A controversial outsourcing company is facing questions over its data security procedures after it admitted sending a recording of a disabled woman being assessed for a disability benefit to another claimant.
Capita, which has faced repeated criticism over the last decade over its handling of its personal independence payment (PIP) assessment contracts, was awarded new government assessment contracts worth £565 million last September.
But now its suitability for that work, which will see it carry out hundreds of thousands of assessments a year for a range of disability benefits across the Midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland, has again been called into question.
Capita has admitted mistakenly sending the recording, but it claims – wrongly – that the blunder did not constitute a data breach because the claimant was not identified by name.
Robert Dickson, a former builder from Bromsgrove, has tried three times – unsuccessfully – to apply for PIP because of the extra costs he faces due to COPD, mental ill-health, chronic bronchitis, ADHD and fibromyalgia.
As part of his latest attempt to secure the support he needs, he was assessed by telephone last month by a Capita assessor, but when Dickson saw his assessment report, he realised the nurse he had spoken to had not accurately reported what he had told her.
But he had also asked for the assessment to be recorded, and so he requested a copy of the recording.
Just days later, Capita sent him a link to the recording – and a text message with the password to access it – but when he began to listen to his assessment, he realised he had been sent the recording of another claimant, a disabled woman, being assessed.
Eventually, after a series of phone calls, Capita asked him to delete the recording, which he has done.
But he said Capita has refused to alert the disabled woman to its error.
Although Capita admitted that he had asked for the assessment to be recorded, it told him it had been unable to find the recording.
Now he fears his own assessment might have been mistakenly shared with another claimant.
Dickson said: “I was blown away. I was thinking, ‘Why have they sent me this?’ And then I started thinking, ‘What’s happened to my recording?’ because I am quite a private person.
“I think these people at Capita should be held to account. They ruin people’s lives with their actions all the time.”
Only last year, the information commissioner reported how “a large number” of organisations had reported breaches of personal data by Capita, following the company being targeted in a cyber-attack, while reports also emerged that it had been storing people’s information in a publicly-available online location.
Capita told Disability News Service (DNS) that the incident with the recording was caused by human error, and that because there was no information on the recording that could identify the disabled woman who was being assessed, it was not a data breach.
That is not correct, as the Information Commissioner’s Office told DNS that personal data can be “information about who you are, where you live, what you do and more”.
Capita said it was now introducing extra checks before audio files are shared with claimants, and it claimed that Dickson’s own assessment had not been recorded.
A Capita spokesperson said: “While no personal data was shared incorrectly, this was a regrettable error and we apologise to those impacted.
“This was an isolated incident, and we are taking steps to make sure it does not happen again.”
Again, this statement appears to be incorrect, as the woman’s personal data was shared incorrectly, according to ICO’s definition.
Despite the information on ICO’s website, Capita continues to insist that it did not breach the woman’s personal data.
Capita has also been unable to explain how it can be sure this was an isolated incident.
DWP refused to say if Capita had informed it of the data breach, and whether it would investigate whether this had happened to other claimants.
It also refused to say if it believed that claimants could trust Capita with their data, including recordings of their assessments; what action it would take following the data breach; and whether it still maintained confidence in Capita, after awarding it two major assessment contracts.
15 February 2024
Young woman took her own life hours before DWP finally agreed long-delayed PIP claim
A young disabled woman took her own life nine months after submitting an application for a disability benefit, which was finally awarded just hours after she died, an inquiry by a committee of MPs has been told.
The Commons work and pensions committee has been told how the 24-year-old’s claim had been held up for months because of flaws within the application process.
Her mother has told the committee that the “mental health impact” of the “hurdles” in the application process “should not be underestimated”.
Her evidence again raises serious concerns about flaws and delays within the personal independence payment (PIP) system.
The written evidence has been published by the committee as part of its inquiry into “safeguarding vulnerable claimants”.
The young woman’s mother said she believed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was “impeded in monitoring the wellbeing of vulnerable claimants”, although it is not clear from her witness statement how big a part she believes the department’s actions played in her daughter’s death.
She explains how her daughter – who was autistic, with significant experience of mental distress – had already been receiving universal credit when she applied for PIP in April 2022.
But the claim was not decided until 27 January 2023, just hours after she took her own life.
DWP also agreed – after her mother complained – that her out-of-work disability benefit had not been renewed when it should have been.
Her daughter had experienced almost constant anxiety over performing everyday tasks, severe mood swings, and also – for the last 18 months of her life – paranoid delusions and psychosis.
Following her death, DWP identified numerous errors in how her claim had been dealt with, according to the statement.
Her mother had tried to become her daughter’s appointee because she could not cope with the process herself, but – she told the committee – the process “was extremely difficult and protracted and errors have been admitted by DWP”.
She described “excessive wait times”, DWP’s failure to acknowledge documents sent by post, and the “huge delay” in being made her daughter’s appointee which meant she had been unable to advocate on her behalf.
She told the committee: “The huge delay was catastrophic in her case, meaning that her claim was not decided until the day after her death.”
She added: “In my view therefore, there are not sufficient processes in place to ensure that full awards are provided to vulnerable claimants.”
Disability News Service had not been able to verify details of the case with DWP or the committee by noon today (Thursday).
But the account is just one of the personal written testimonies sent to the committee, and now published on its website.
Another claimant with mental distress and an eating disorder told the committee in her written statement that she had lost a stone in weight because of her struggles with universal credit.
This included being unfairly sanctioned three times – which took two years and the help of her MP to remove – and had found it “impossible to get help and support”.
She wrote: “I feel like I have no future and everything has been taken away.
“In my case there was no safeguarding or support. I could not find one person in the DWP who would even talk to me.”
She said the current system was “literally killing people” through the “brutality of the system, the bullying and abuse”, while messages through the universal credit online journal “can be completely ignored” by DWP.
She said dealing with DWP was “frustrating, soul destroying” and “sucks the life out of you”.
A third claimant told the committee: “My recent claim for Pip took almost 2 years and left me suicidal.
“The DWP is vile, cares nothing for claimants, and offered me no help whatsoever even though I have severe mental illness.
“I didn’t even know they had any kind of safeguarding policies, yet alone been offered anything… too many thousands have died already, and no, they don’t currently offer any support to claimants that I know of.”
Disability Rights UK, which based its written statement on investigative work by Disability News Service, said that that evidence “shows that the welfare and safety of Disabled people in the hands of DWP is not guaranteed”.
Among other recommendations, it called for a public inquiry to “learn the truth about what has happened in cases of benefit related deaths and serious harm”.
Bromley, Lewisham and Greenwich Mind told the committee in its statement: “Every week we see cases where our clients have ended up in unsafe situations because their benefits have stopped, and they have been too unwell to engage with the process of trying to get them reinstated.”
In its nine-page statement to the committee, DWP said it welcomed the inquiry.
It said: “Our overarching mission is to improve the day-to-day lives of our citizens and help them to build a secure and prosperous future, while supporting the most vulnerable.
“This intention connects the many different services, programmes, and support that the department provides across the country.
“In a challenging year when families have been feeling the pressure from cost of living increases, DWP has been at the forefront of delivering vital support at an impressive pace and scale, providing Cost of Living Payments to over seven million low-income householders, with millions of additional payments going to pensioners and disabled people.”
It added: “In this evidence submission, the department sets out the measures in place to support vulnerable claimants, how the department is developing as a learning organisation to improve and transform services for all benefit claimants as well as improving trust and transparency.”
15 February 2024
DWP’s ‘shocking and shameful’ duty of care refusal must be addressed, MPs are told
More than 20 disability and welfare rights organisations and charities have told MPs that a new legal duty must be introduced to force the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to safeguard the wellbeing of “vulnerable” claimants of benefits.
Every non-government organisation that answered a question on whether a statutory duty should be imposed supported such a move, as part of an ongoing inquiry by the Commons work and pensions committee.
Disability Rights UK said the department’s refusal to accept that it had a statutory safeguarding responsibility to claimants in vulnerable situations was “shocking and shameful” and also “dangerous”.
It told the committee in its written response: “It means that the safety of claimants is not at the forefront of DWP policy and procedures and that any damage caused to claimants by DWP, falls to other services such as the NHS and social care to mop up.”
The disabled women’s grassroots group WinVisible called for DWP to have a statutory safeguarding duty, but it also warned that “safeguarding vulnerable claimants is not possible without tackling the systemic hostility of the benefits system towards sick and disabled claimants, and others needing financial support to survive”.
Possibly most damaging for DWP is that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which independently investigates complaints about UK government departments and the NHS in England, told the committee that it had “good reason to doubt the ability of DWP and its contracted agencies to consistently recognise, respond to and take full account of the vulnerabilities of some benefits claimants”.
It said it would “welcome further consideration of the introduction of a statutory duty to safeguard the wellbeing of vulnerable claimants”.
Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, a research charity set up by Martin Lewis to break “the vicious cycle of money and mental health problems”, based its written response on a survey answered by more than 300 people with mental distress.
It said DWP was “failing to adequately identify and assist those who are in vulnerable situations – and who face challenges navigating the DWP’s systems and processes”.
And it added: “Given how many people with mental health problems depend on the social security system, the DWP should have a legal requirement to safeguard the wellbeing of people with more complex needs and who require assistance.”
The Public Law Project, which has played a significant role in fighting for the rights of disabled claimants through the courts, called for DWP to be placed under “a specific statutory duty to safeguard the wellbeing of vulnerable claimants in order to increase the accountability of its practices”.
Among other organisations that backed the introduction of a statutory duty were Child Poverty Action Group, the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers, Rethink, The Poverty Alliance and Women’s Aid Federation of England.
Another was Bromley, Lewisham and Greenwich Mind (BLG Mind), which told the committee: “Every week we see cases where our clients have ended up in unsafe situations because their benefits have stopped, and they have been too unwell to engage with the process of trying to get them reinstated.
“None of these cases are inevitable.
“Often the DWP could have prevented this harm by making further enquires with statutory services or attempting to contact others who are known to the client.”
BLG Mind told the committee of one client who had his personal independence payment removed after telling his assessor he was no longer in contact with his local mental health services.
The assessor and DWP decision-maker assumed his health had improved, but he had only been discharged from mental health services because he was too unwell to attend.
He fell into rent arrears and had to access his local foodbank, before BLG Mind successfully appealed on his behalf and DWP reinstated his PIP at the highest rates.
The only organisation that argued against a statutory duty was DWP.
It told the committee: “We support millions of people every year and our top priority is they get the benefits to which they are entitled to at the right time, and to ensure they receive a supportive and compassionate service.
“While the department does not have a statutory or common law duty of care, we engage with claimants and, where appropriate, direct or refer them to appropriate agencies who may owe a duty of care and can provide appropriate support.”
15 February 2024
US fitness chain scraps disabled campaigner’s reasonable adjustments… then apologises for the ‘inconvenience’
A luxury US chain that suddenly removed the reasonable adjustments that allowed a disabled campaigner to take part in its “spin” fitness classes has been accused of breaching equality laws.
Rebecca Ogbonna had been attending sessions at the Soho and Notting Hill branches of SoulCycle in London for more than a year.
But last month, SoulCycle suddenly told her it was scrapping the adjustments that had allowed her to book her favourite spin sessions early so she could reserve a bike that was close enough to the instructor for her to see the instructions.
The company offers workout classes that combine cycling machines with candlelight, carefully-selected playlists and choreography, with devotees including Akshata Murty, wife of prime minister Rishi Sunak, Michelle Obama and actor Jessica Alba.
The company’s own website brags that its workout sessions “create a space for people from all dimensions of diversity in an environment that is accepting, inclusive and free of hate”.
But Ogbonna says SoulCycle’s actions have been far from accepting and inclusive.
Because she is blind, with only limited vision, the studio had granted her a 10-minute time slot to book one of the only three bikes that are close enough to the instructor to allow her to follow the instructions.
Most of the sessions are so popular that without this reasonable adjustment, she would be stuck too far from the instructor to follow the moves.
But last month SoulCycle suddenly informed her that the adjustment would end, on 1 February, apologising for the change and describing it as an “inconvenience”.
When she questioned the move, she was told she could have five “credits” every month that would allow her to book a slot ahead of the usual time, but only if she used the company’s mobile phone app.
But the app is not accessible to her on her phone, and she often wants to attend more than five classes a month.
The company originally offered to set up a meeting with her to discuss her concerns, and told her: “We want to ensure we are providing a reasonable accommodation that works for both parties, per UK disability laws.”
But it then cancelled the meeting without an explanation.
Disability News Service (DNS) has seen an email thread in which a New York-based SoulCycle manager told Ogbonna: “Unfortunately, we will not be able to have a meeting at this time.”
The manager suggested that some classes were less popular and so Ogbonna would find it easier to book the bike she wanted for those sessions, while pointing out that she had used the app on several occasions in the past.
She added: “For these reasons we will continue with our recent accommodation stated below of 5 SoulEarly classes at the beginning of every month.
“You may also call at any open business hour time during the booking window and we will do our best to book you on the preferred bike.
“Thank you for understanding and have a good evening.”
In a letter of complaint to SoulCycle, Ogbonna wrote: “I am making a complaint as I feel this is the only way to deal with the dismissive and discriminatory way I have been treated.”
She told DNS this week: “Their whole messaging is about inclusivity. It’s literally in their code of conduct.
“They say their compromise of offering me five times a month to book a bike I can see from is a reasonable adjustment, but it’s not.
“I just don’t understand how they can preach such inclusivity and act in a way so contradictory.
“When I told them about the Equality Act, I had hoped that would be enough for them to apologise and do the right thing.”
When asked how it could justify its apparent discriminatory treatment of a disabled customer, why it cancelled the meeting with Ogbonna, and what action it planned to take to put this right, a SoulCycle spokesperson said: “We are fully committed to making appropriate accommodations to our riders and have worked toward providing that for this rider.
“We are continuing to provide credits to unlock complimentary pre-booking for this rider, and anyone unable to use the app is able to reserve classes by calling the studio.”
When informed that DNS had seen the email exchange that showed SoulCycle had told Ogbonna she would have to use the inaccessible app, had restricted her to five early bookings a month, and had told her she would otherwise have to call during the normal booking window, the company failed to comment further.
15 February 2024
Access to electric vehicle charging-points ‘is treated as inconvenient afterthought’
Disabled campaigners are calling on the government to do more to ensure that public charging-points for electric vehicles are accessible to drivers with access needs.
Last week, a House of Lords committee produced a report that recommended that only a small proportion of new charging-points for electric vehicles (EVs) should be accessible.
The report referenced 2022 guidance from the British Standards Institution (BSI), which highlights the environment around charging-points, their location, design and spacing, and the information provided to users.
Among access concerns raised by disabled people are that there is often not enough room between parking spaces, instructions and sockets are being placed too high on the charging-units, while there is frequently not enough lighting, and connectors cannot be used with one hand.
The Lords environment and climate change committee says in its report that it received “significant evidence in support of ensuring that chargepoints and chargepoint bays are accessible for disabled drivers”.
Disabled Motoring UK told the committee that most charging-points that have been installed so far are not accessible, with many being installed on plinths or kerbs and surrounded by bollards.
The report says the “limited number” of accessible charging-points presents a “major barrier” for disabled motorists “in transitioning to EVs”.
But although the report says the government is “encouraging” adoption of BSI’s PAS1899 guidance and is urging councils to “incorporate accessibility” into procurement processes and applications for grants from the government’s Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV), ministers are not seeking to make the guidance mandatory for all new charging-points.
The report says it is “crucial” that disabled people can use public charging-points, but it also says it “may not be practicable for all chargepoints at every site to meet these standards, and imposing this would risk jeopardising the rollout”.
It recommends instead that “chargepoint hubs over a certain size should be required to have a proportion of accessible chargers available that meet these standards”.
But Dick Fowler, a wheelchair-user and retired auditor who has previously advised the Department for Transport, has written to the Lords committee asking it to strengthen its recommendations.
He told the committee in his letter: “Accessibility should have been designed in from the outset, but as usual is an inconvenient afterthought.”
He wants to push OZEV to make the guidance mandatory because he fears that “only a tiny fraction of the mass charge point rollout will be accessible”, which will lead to “real and severe” anxiety among disabled drivers about how far they will be able to travel in their EVs and whether they will be left “stranded”.
Fowler said that accessible charging-points need to include those provided commercially, and not just those receiving public funds, and he warned that where a charging-point hub has both accessible and inaccessible bays, non-disabled drivers, including those who drive vans and minibuses, often choose the accessible bays for convenience.
Graham Footer, chief executive of Disabled Motoring UK (DMUK), said DMUK shared Fowler’s concerns about accessible EV charging provision.
He said: “There simply aren’t enough accessible public EV charge points being installed and disabled motorists are being left behind in the transition to electric vehicles as a result.
“As an organisation, we are not suggesting that every EV charge point should be PAS1899 compliant, but that a reasonable percentage of charge points should be at any given site.”
Motability Foundation*, which co-sponsored the BSI guidance with the government, said it supports the standard becoming mandatory, but favours a “phased approach” that could ensure a certain percentage of EV chargers are compliant by 2030, with that proportion increasing in future years.
A Motability Foundation spokesperson said: “Since the launch of PAS1899 in October 2022, we have focussed on raising awareness of the standard amongst chargepoint manufacturers, providers, designers and procurers (including local authorities), with the aim of promoting compliance.”
Because of “issues around interpretation” with some parts of the guidance, Motability has co-sponsored a working group with OZEV that will allow the industry to provide feedback on achieving compliance and will also engage with disabled people on their experiences with public charging.
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We encourage all chargepoint designs to incorporate accessibility guidance from the British Standards Institution and advise local authorities to consider accessibility as part of all grant scheme applications.
“We are monitoring implementation over a two-year period and will consider whether further intervention is required.”
Last year, Disability News Service reported how the rollout of new charging-points was stripping vital pavement space away from pedestrians and wheelchair-users, and that almost none of the charging points being installed were accessible to disabled drivers.
Research across London by two campaigning organisations found that only four of London’s 32 boroughs had so far installed more charging-points on roads than on pavements.
And only nine of the councils had clear planning policies that matched best practice guidance that charging-points should be built on “kerb buildouts” in the road, and not take up vital space on pavements.
*The Motability charity is a DNS subscriber
15 February 2024
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
More than 100 families looking after severely disabled adults and children outside hospital have told the BBC that the NHS is failing to provide enough vital support. Many got in touch after a BBC report about a mother left on her own for long periods to care for her son: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68238040
A university’s appeal against a judgement that it contributed to the death of a student by discriminating against her has been rejected. Natasha Abrahart, who had chronic social anxiety disorder, took her own life in April 2018 on the day she was due to take part in a group presentation at the University of Bristol. The high court upheld the decision that the university had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-68284323
Mental health inpatients have been told to attend jobcentre meetings relating to their benefits claims, including one claimant who was told to turn up for a work-related appointment. Three patients at Forston clinic, an NHS mental health inpatient service near Dorchester, were told to attend meetings or risk their benefits being cut in recent months – sparking complaints from the local Citizens Advice branch, which has an adviser based at the clinic: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/10/seriously-ill-mental-health-inpatients-told-to-attend-jobcentre-or-risk-losing-benefits
A disabled woman was forced to crawl up a flight of stairs at a London Overground station when a lift was broken. To make things worse, staff were seen giggling as wheelchair-user Jennie Berry had to shuffle up the stairs on her bottom. By the time she reached the top, a lift technician announced the lift was fixed. Station staff at Dalston station in north-east London were heard joking that “she could use the lift if she wanted” after she finished her tiring, 15-minute climb: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wheelchair-user-forced-crawl-up-32099225
15 February 2024
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
