Tens of thousands driven into debt by care charges, new figures show
Tens of thousands of disabled people across the country are having debt collection action taken against them every year by their local authorities over unpaid care charges, information secured by disabled campaigners has revealed.
Cheshire Disabled People Against Cuts (CDPAC) and Inclusion London have been sent figures showing that thousands of individuals had debt management procedures taken against them in 2020-21 for unpaid care charges for non-residential care, across just six local authorities in the north-west of England.
If those figures are replicated across the rest of the 150 local councils that provide social care, it could mean more than 100,000 disabled people in England have been left in debt because their local authority has asked them to pay for social care in their own homes.
CDPAC said the research had “uncovered a disturbing picture of disabled residents pushed into care charge debt in high numbers by their local authority”.
Both CDPAC and Inclusion London are among disabled people’s organisations pushing the government and opposition parties to support an end to all care charges.
Among the local authorities that provided figures under the Freedom of Information Act, all Labour-run, Wigan council said that 4,649 service-users had been charged for their non-residential care in 2020-21, while more than 4,633 “clients” had received at least a “first and final notice” letter for non-payment of care charges since April 2018.
Cheshire East Council said more than 2,900 service-users were charged for non-residential social care in 2020-21 and that it currently had “1,623 debtors relating to Adult Social Care”, although this also includes those in debt for residential care charges.
Cheshire West and Cheshire Council charged nearly 2,500 individuals for non-residential social care in 2020-21, with the council receiving more than £5.4 million from charges that year.
So far, in 2021-22 – the council was unable to provide figures for the previous three years –916 service-users have “fallen into a recovery process”.
Neighbouring Halton council said it received more than £4.7 million in non-residential care charges from 477 service-users in 2020-21.
Halton sent out letters or emails relating to non-payment of non-residential social care charges to 2,175 “clients” in 2020-21, although it stressed that this included “client debt accumulated from previous years”.
St Helens council told CDPAC that it had sent out 2,473 letters about non-payment of non-residential care charges in 2020-21 – it is currently charging about 2,200 people a year for such care – although it stressed that this was the number of letters it had sent out, with many of the service-users affected likely to have received more than one letter.
And in Oldham, which had nearly 2,100 service-users charged for their non-residential social care in 2020-21, the council said it had sent out about 2,000 debt recovery letters since April 2018.
A spokesperson for CDPAC called on the councils to “urgently review their debt recovery codes of practice” and clarify how pursuing disabled people with support needs for care charge arrears upholds the Care Act’s “wellbeing principle”.
She said: “Thousands of disabled residents are struggling to pay their council’s home care bills.
“Ultimately, the scandal of social care charging must end, with provision delivered on NHS terms.”
She said the councils should cancel care charge debts and freeze care charges for 2022-23, and take other interim measures to ease the amount disabled people are being asked to pay by their councils.
These interim measures would include increasing the minimum amount all service-users must be left with after paying charges (the minimum income guarantee) and raising the amount of disability-related expenses they can use to offset their care charges.
Among those CDPAC called on to act this week was Cheshire MP Mike Amesbury, Labour’s shadow local government minister.
It said he should “condemn the practice of local authority debt recovery against disabled people with statutory care and support needs” and should call on the Labour council leaders of Cheshire West and Chester, Halton and Cheshire East councils to “urgently implement the measures we have outlined to mitigate the intersecting cost of living and social care charging crises”.
The Labour party had failed by noon today (Thursday) to respond to three requests to comment on the new figures.
Halton council and Cheshire West and Cheshire Council had also failed to comment by noon today.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) declined to say if it was concerned at the number of disabled people receiving debt-related letters over their care charges, whether the figures showed councils should stop charging disabled people for their care and support, or whether the government itself should scrap all social care charges.
But a DHSC spokesperson said in a statement: “We know the potentially vulnerable nature of this group which is why we guide local authorities to approach repayments from those receiving non-residential care and support sensitively, bearing in mind the individual’s circumstances, to ensure affordable arrangements are agreed.
“For many councils, adult social care is their largest area of spending and centrally we are continuing to prioritise it through a £5.4 billion investment over the next three years to reform and make major improvements to the system.”
DHSC also said that another £1 billion in funding was being made available to councils in 2022-23 for social care, and that the government had a duty to recover money owed to taxpayers.
Meanwhile, disabled activists in Bristol have raised concerns over proposed cuts of £11 million to the adult social care budget in the city.
Bristol Reclaiming Independent Living (BRIL) said the cuts “threaten the lives of disabled people who are already struggling with reduced support services and have been the hardest hit by the pandemic”.
BRIL said that a council consultation carried out in December was inaccessible to many residents and did not include details of the budgetary proposals.
One BRIL member said: “I feel terrified of the social care budget cuts. The immediate impact is to reduce my ability to function and make decisions.”
Bristol City Council said the cuts would be introduced over the next five years, and most of them were now subject to further consultation.
A spokesperson said: “There are a number of proposals to introduce savings over the next five years which are all aimed at driving efficiencies rather than reducing access or cutting services.
“All of the proposals aim to deliver support in better ways that improve outcomes rather than cause any negative impact on the lives of disabled people.
“We have done some initial consultation with local organisations, but many of the saving proposals will require further detailed consultation.”
17 February 2022
Government’s advisers call for billions extra in rail access cash
The government’s independent advisers on accessible transport have called for billions more pounds to be invested in removing the “deeply-rooted barriers” disabled people face across the rail system.
The report by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) calls for accessibility to be “embedded into the core of what the railway does in the same way that safety is currently”.
Its recommendations are described by its members as “very ambitious, aspirational, and crucially, we believe, deliverable”.
It warns that the rail network remains “substantially inaccessible for many disabled people”, and although it is upbeat about progress on the accessibility of trains, it concludes that rail stations “remain a very considerable distance from anything even approaching full accessibility”.
An initial draft of the Working Towards A Fully Accessible Railway report appears to have been completed in late 2020, but the final report was not handed to the Department for Transport (DfT) until late last year, and it was published quietly this week.
DPTAC says the report was made available to the government as it was drawing up last summer’s much-criticised National Disability Strategy.
Keith Richards, DPTAC’s chair, told Disability News Service (DNS) that the paper was available to DfT “throughout the process of developing the government’s National Disability Strategy and associated funding bids that arose during that period”.
Despite the report’s recommendations, the strategy – which last month was declared to be unlawful by a high court judge – announced only a nationwide accessibility audit of mainline rail stations, rather than substantial new funding.
The paper was also published 10 days after the closure of a government call for evidence on its Whole Industry Strategic Plan for Rail (WISP), which closed on 4 February, and was supposed to “help shape the Strategic Plan and the future of the railway”.
Two other DPTAC reports that called for urgent action on accessibility were also released this week.
Doug Paulley, one of four disabled people who took a legal case against the government that led to the National Disability Strategy being declared unlawful, and also a leading accessible transport campaigner, praised DPTAC for its “utterly excellent” report.
But he said it was “very worrying and disappointing that the government has treated disabled people’s needs with complete contempt, particularly when it requires any investment”.
The DPTAC paper reveals that its members had been arguing for two years that accessibility “needs to be seen as a fundamental requirement of a successful railway”, and that the “current culture, structure and regulatory/commercial framework” of the rail industry were “unlikely to deliver” a “fully accessible railway”.
It describes the access barriers facing disabled rail passengers, with only one in five stations providing step-free access between street and platforms to “new-build standards”, fewer than two per cent of stations having level access between train and platform, only 35 per cent of stations having accessible toilets, and just 64 per cent having handrails on both sides of all stairs and ramps.
The report estimates that it would cost about £6 billion to upgrade all stations to “new-build standards of step-free access”.
At current rates of investment, it would take about 100 years for this to be achieved, and it concludes that there is “no escaping the simple fact that significantly more investment is required”.
It suggests an initial 2040 deadline to upgrade all stations to a “reasonable level of step-free access”, with a second phase deadline of 2060 for upgrading most stations to new-build standards of step-free access.
Other issues, such as the gap between trains and platforms, and the lack of accessible toilets and heated waiting-rooms, could be addressed in a long-term strategy.
The DTAC paper also calls for “turn up and go” assistance to be available at “virtually all stations”.
DPTAC says there must be “transformational change” in the culture of the rail industry, with recommendations including improvements to disability equality training and relationships between the industry and disabled people, and for more disabled people to be employed within the rail sector.
It also calls for a single body to be responsible for enforcing a new regulatory code on accessibility, replacing the “current fragmented approach”, and collecting and publishing data that showed progress towards a “fully accessible railway”.
Richards said yesterday: “Things have been moving very fast in the rail reform arena, although slowed by the impacts of the pandemic, so we have kept our focus on what changes are most likely to actually deliver better access to disabled people in their daily lives in the short, medium and longer terms.”
In response to questions from DNS on why it had taken so long for the report to be published, when the date at the end of the report was November 2020, he said the paper was “a long-evolving position statement that DPTAC has been developing over the last few years as part of its input to the Williams Rail Review which began in 2018.
“DPTAC’s role is to advise DfT on access to transport, and as the document went through a number of iterations, it was shared widely with the Williams Rail Review team and DfT officials at all levels and benefitted from extensive engagement”.
Tony Jennings, co-chair of a rail accessibility panel and a disability rights campaigner and member of the Campaign for Level Boarding, said the paper demonstrated the continuing access problems within the rail industry.
Jennings, himself a mobility scooter-user, said: “It’s not like the industry hasn’t been told this re funding and taking accessibility seriously and setting reasonable access timescales countless times, and DfT offers crumbs in reply.
“Disabled people don’t need another toothless, unfunded rail access strategy from the government that changes nothing and doesn’t explain how they’re going to achieve an inclusive accessible railway that is safer and enables independent travel and benefits everyone.
“We need cross-party agreement and long-term funding to deliver level boarding and accessible stations in a reasonable timescale, else we’ll be having the same conversation in 20 years’ time.
“Accessibility needs to be taken seriously.”
Alan Benson, another leading campaigner on accessible transport, and chair of Transport for All (TfA), although speaking personally and not for TfA, said the DPTAC paper “captures much of the failings of our railways for disabled people, and proposes some concrete and workable solutions.
“These will need commitment across the industry and most challenging from current and future governments.
“We know past targets have been missed but aspiration is key.”
He said it was “regrettable” that the report was published after the WISP consultation ended, as “many people would have found this useful in preparing their responses”.
The government also published two other DPTAC reports this week, both of which were critical of progress on improving accessibility of the rail network.
One of the DPTAC reports was written in response to an open letter published last June by the government’s Office of Rail and Road (ORR) on its “periodic review” of the rail industry.
In the report, DPTAC says it was “very surprised” that ORR’s open letter “did not contain a single specific reference to accessibility”, despite the “crucial importance of providing targeted funding to address the inaccessibility of much of the station estate”.
The other DPTAC report responds to a review of rail “interoperability” regulations – designed to ensure trains and rail infrastructure are compatible.
In its report, DPTAC again refers to the need for “significantly more investment” to make rail stations accessible.
It warns that the current design standards code of practice on accessible rail stations “has not proved to be effective at ensuring that station rebuilds/upgrades and new-builds comply with the required design standards”, which it blames on ORR being “not sufficiently well-resourced to monitor and enforce compliance”.
It also highlights how the complexity of the system makes it “difficult for disabled people and their representative bodies to hold the rail industry and specific organisations within it to account” on accessibility.
A DfT spokesperson said: “More than 75 per cent of passenger journeys are now through stations with step free access compared with less than 50 per cent in 2005.
“This is in conjunction with over £400 million of investment to the Access for All programme, delivering step free routes at over 100 more stations with tactile platform edges at every station in Great Britain over the next three years.
“We have also started the first comprehensive access audit of every station in the country, as we look to greatly improve passenger information and assistance booking.”
17 February 2022
EHRC faces questions over failure to act on DWP benefit deaths
Disabled activists have asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) why it is still failing to act over links between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the deaths of disabled benefit claimants.
Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance (ROFA) and Disabled People Against Cuts wrote to the watchdog two years ago to call for it to act to prevent further avoidable deaths linked to DWP’s policies and practices.
Their letter in March 2020 followed the death of Errol Graham, who starved to death after his employment and support allowance was wrongly cut off by DWP.
They pointed then to years of evidence of links between DWP and “countless” other avoidable deaths, much of it obtained by Disability News Service (DNS).
Now ROFA and DPAC have written again to EHRC, pointing to a series of deaths and other evidence that has emerged in the last two years – much of it again uncovered by DNS – as the commission has repeatedly failed to act.
They say the situation “continues to deteriorate and claimants continue to die as a result of the hostile climate created by the DWP for Disabled people”.
The letter includes evidence that emerged in November 2020 at an inquest into the death of Roy Curtis, which found that he had taken his own life six days after being told to attend a “fitness for work” assessment, despite DWP being repeatedly warned that its actions had made him suicidal.
It also highlights the findings of a coroner in January 2021 who found that flaws in the personal independence payment system were “the predominant factor and the only acute factor” that led to the death of Philippa Day, from Nottingham.
And the letter draws EHRC’s attention to academic research, published last year, which found that DWP staff and managers – between 2010 and 2015 – had deliberately inflicted psychological harm on benefit claimants, engaged in unofficial sanctioning targets, and pushed disabled people into work despite the risk to their health.
The letter also draws attention to concerns that have emerged in the last couple of years about links between DWP and the deaths of Philip Pakree, Ker Featherstone, Christian Wilcox and Terence Talbot.
In the letter, Mark Harrison, a member of ROFA’s steering group, says: “We feel that these cases are a result of a planned and systematic failure to safeguard Disabled people’s lives and a failure in their duty of care to claimants.
“This is in spite of [DWP] repeatedly being told by independent experts, the UN, coroners, disabled people’s organisations, MPs, families, academics, and in its own secret reviews, of the harm its policies were causing.”
The watchdog had initially promised to launch an inquiry into links between DWP’s work capability assessment and the deaths of claimants, after being approached in April 2019 by Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, a former shadow work and pensions secretary.
Senior commission executives then made the decision to delay and “deprioritise” the inquiry in June 2020 – without consulting its own board, or its own disability advisory committee – because of the extra workload caused by the pandemic.
EHRC’s disability advisory committee later issued a statement saying that its members had secured a promise from the commission that the inquiry was still a priority.
But there was anger last year when EHRC backed away from that commitment, announcing plans instead to address the “systemic barriers” facing disabled claimants in the benefits system, with no further mention of an inquiry.
Even that promise has yet to produce any public results, with an EHRC spokesperson unable to produce any evidence of action when questioned about the pledge by DNS three months ago.
It stated instead that EHRC “will be using our powers, including strategic enforcement action, to address barriers in the benefits systems for disabled claimants”, was “actively looking for cases”, and “hope to be able to share more in the near future”.
An EHRC spokesperson said: “We have received the letter and will carefully consider all the information provided.”
17 February 2022
Legal letter asks DWP for information on ‘discriminatory’ secret algorithm
Disabled campaigners have sent a legal letter to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to question how its use of a secret algorithm* could be discriminating against disabled people in the way it selects claimants to face benefit fraud investigations.
Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP), which is being supported by the tech justice campaign group Foxglove, believes the algorithm is “over-picking” disabled people for its benefit fraud investigations.
It has now sent a formal letter to DWP to ask for information about how the algorithm is being used and for evidence that it does not discriminate against disabled people, and to warn of potential further legal action.
So far, DWP is refusing to say how people are being targeted, how it is ensuring disabled people’s rights are protected, and what checks and balances are in place to ensure benefit claimants are not being unfairly and unlawfully harassed.
Rick Burgess, from GMCDP, told an online event last week that algorithms “tend to reproduce the biases and discriminations in wider society and culture”.
He said GMCDP and Foxglove suspect that DWP’s algorithm is “over-picking disabled people for investigations of fraud”, resulting in extreme distress for the claimants who have been picked.
Burgess said this distress can be particularly severe if the claimant already experiences paranoia or anxiety.
He said: “It can be extremely debilitating. I know people have withdrawn from life because of it. I know there have been suicides because of it. It is extremely harmful to people.
“For those investigations to occur I think there needs to be an extremely high level of proof and suspicion before you can even start that process, because the risk to people is potentially lethal.”
He said the use of the algorithm by DWP had become a new barrier for disabled people.
He said: “Disabled people are consistently always having to be tested, always having to prove ourselves, always having to fill in forms, always having to pass tests, you’re always being questioned about your identity.”
GMCDP has started a crowdfunder to raise money for any legal costs it might face in the case against DWP, and is nearly halfway to its target of £15,000.
Burgess said the way fraud investigations are carried out by DWP is “absolutely, classically Kafkaesque”.
He said: “You don’t know who your accuser is. You don’t know why you’ve suddenly been picked out.
“Typically, it’s either an envelope, a phone call, or email. It’s extremely upsetting when people get this.”
He said that the “weird pattern” of disabled people being suddenly investigated for no apparent reason suggested a system that was “kind of making up its own rules”.
He added: “In an investigation, before anything has been proven, your benefits can be stopped so you are treated as guilty until proven innocent.”
Burgess said the idea that disability benefit fraud was widespread was a “masterpiece of propaganda” as the actual fraud rate for some disability benefits was as low as 0.5 per cent**, but DWP “still treat everybody as a suspect”.
Laura Lazaro Cabrera, a legal officer with Privacy International, which campaigns against companies and governments exploiting data technology, said they originally uncovered evidence of the use of algorithms in 2019 in a DWP anti-fraud staff training manual and in DWP’s annual report and accounts for 2017-18.
The annual report said DWP was developing “cutting-edge artificial intelligence to crack down on organised criminal gangs committing large-scale benefit fraud”.
DWP later admitted to using “data matching and data analysis to help identify people who may not have declared their circumstances correctly”.
But it has so far refused to release any information about its use of algorithms to Privacy International, arguing that to do so would “prejudice the prevention and detection of fraud and crime”.
Will Perry, a barrister with Monckton Chambers, who is working on the GMCDP legal case, said DWP appeared to be “experimenting with a wide range of different technologies”.
He said the case focused on DWP’s lack of transparency, and was arguing potential breaches of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as DWP’s obligations under the Equality Act’s public sector equality duty.
He said they expected a formal response to their legal letter next month, but he warned that it was “uncharted territory” for lawyers as the few previous UK cases have been settled before reaching court.
Rosa Curling, director of Foxglove, said they were hoping the legal action would show that algorithms such as those being used by DWP could be challenged in court, and that it would encourage other groups to consider taking action through the courts.
She said algorithms appear to be being used secretly across local and national government, “without proper scrutiny and accountability, and… are making decisions that are affecting everybody’s lives in an absolutely profound way”.
A DWP spokesperson said: “The DWP will be responding to the letter written by the representatives of the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People in due course.”
*An algorithm is a set of instructions that allows a computer to complete a task
**DWP figures published in May 2020 (PDF) showed the fraud rate for disability living allowance was 0.5 per cent of spending, for personal independence payment was 0.3 per cent, for employment and support allowance was 1.9 per cent, and for incapacity benefit was 0.3 per cent of spending
17 February 2022
Legal action seeks justice over award of fire safety contract
Disabled campaigners have launched legal action over the government’s decision to award a crucial fire safety contract to consultants who have repeatedly argued against introducing written evacuation plans for disabled residents of tower blocks.
Claddag, a leaseholder action group led by disabled people, is seeking a judicial review of the Home Secretary’s decision to award the £210,400 contract to C S Todd & Associates (CSTA).
In 2011, CSTA was responsible for drafting and editing a fire safety guide for the Local Government Association (LGA)* that stated that it was “usually unrealistic” to expect landlords to put in place arrangements for disabled people to evacuate blocks of flats in case of an emergency.
Six years later, with the guidance and advice still in place, 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower disaster, including many disabled residents.
None of them had evacuation plans in place, with a single staircase the sole means of escape in the event of an evacuation.
The LGA guide has been widely criticised during the inquiry, including by its independent expert on fire safety engineering.
Lawyers for survivors and relatives of those who died told the Grenfell Tower Inquiry that two-fifths of disabled Grenfell residents lost their lives in the fire.
Colin Todd, CSTA’s managing director, has told the inquiry in a written witness statement that the reference in the 2011 guidance to personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for disabled people had been approved by senior figures in the fire and housing sectors – who were consulted on the specific wording – and government lawyers.
But he also made it clear that CSTA’s view when drafting the guidance had been that “PEEPs, in the sense that the term is normally used whereby staff on premises assist with evacuation of disabled people, were not practicable”.
The inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, disagreed with his evidence and recommended that all high-rise residents whose ability to self-evacuate was “compromised” should have a PEEP.
But now the Home Office has awarded a contract to CSTA to produce a series of guidance documents, which will include advice on disabled people’s means of escape from fires in buildings.
Claddag’s lawyers, Bhatt Murphy, point out that CSTA also authored a fire safety code of practice for BSI, which was published in December 2020 – well after the Grenfell fire – and they say that this again stated that it was not necessary for any plans to be drawn up to assist disabled people who may need to escape.
BSI was forced to withdraw that guidance following the threat of legal action by a bereaved family member of a disabled tenant who died in the Grenfell fire.
Todd said yesterday (Wednesday) that the code of practice “actually advised that arrangements needed to be made for the provision of contact numbers for persons with whom disabled people could discuss and plan their evacuation in the event of fire”.
Although the guidance is now available as a free download from the BSI website, several paragraphs referring to the evacuation of disabled people have been redacted.
Bhatt Murphy argues that the decision to award the contract to CSTA appears to be a breach of home secretary Priti Patel’s public sector equality duty, under the Equality Act.
In a statement, Claddag said: “Given Mr Todd consistently advocates against evacuation plans for disabled people, and was the only expert of four to do so in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, we do not feel it is right for him to have this influence and authority over the safety of disabled people.
“In awarding this contract, we believe that the home secretary has failed in her public sector equality duty towards disabled people.
“The denial of our right to evacuation plans is a huge hidden injustice faced by private tenants, social housing tenants and leaseholders alike.”
Sarah Rennie and Georgie Hulme, Claddag’s co-founders, both wheelchair-users who live in blocks of flats, told Disability News Service (DNS) that Todd had been unable to point to any legal basis for his views about evacuating disabled people, and that three other experts at the inquiry had disagreed with him, as had the inquiry.
They added: “Why then is Todd the appropriate author for guidance on the means of escape for disabled people?
“We are not technical experts, but we speak from lived experience.
“Georgie and I are two clear examples of where we have had to write our own PEEPs and presented workable plans to our building managers in the face of resistance or outright refusal to recognise them.
“This is despite that fact that our plans do not require any member of building staff to assist us.
“Our plans are wholly workable, practicable and maximise our chance of survival.
“The objections we face come from a culture of dismissing PEEPs for disabled people which Todd has undoubtedly helped create and sustain, most notably by [his role in drafting and editing] the LGA guide.”
Meanwhile, DNS has seen an article Todd has written for this month’s issue of an industry magazine, The Journal of the Institution of Fire Engineers, which suggests that his views about PEEPs have not changed.
He points out that the government has yet to respond to a public consultation on a proposal – following a recommendation made by the Grenfell inquiry – that PEEPs that do not involve the fire and rescue service should be required by law for those disabled residents of high-rise blocks of flats who want one.
Todd points in the article to the “practical difficulties” of this proposal and adds that it is “well known that there is a school of thought that these PEEPs are totally impractical, while there is another school of thought that they are required for compliance with the [Equality Act]”.
Although he has not yet commented publicly on the award of the Home Office contract to CSTA, Todd – who is himself a disabled person – has shared the article with DNS, as well as public comments he has previously made criticising other sector experts for ignoring disabled people’s fire safety needs.
The article describes how he has been involved for more than 20 years in initiatives to enhance the fire safety of disabled people, including how they communicate from refuges in emergencies.
It focuses on a project he has been working on for more than two years that will allow firefighters to identify disabled people who are still in a block of flats and need to be evacuated in an emergency.
The proposed solution is to issue a small pendant – containing a microchip – on a neck chain to each disabled resident, which will be recognised by electronic sensors each time they enter or leave the building.
In an emergency, the fire and rescue service would then have access to a screen which would show which disabled residents were currently in the building.
The project begins trials shortly.
Lord Greenhalgh, the fire minister, said: “Keeping the public safe is our top priority and we are determined to ensure the tragedy of Grenfell Tower does not happen again.
“C S Todd and Associates has significant technical experience in complex fire safety matters and is appointed to provide guidance relating to fire safety.
“The company was the successful applicant for the contract after an open and fair procurement process.
“There is strong governance in place, which is kept under regular review, to oversee the direction and detail of the guidance before it’s published.”
The Home Office says it is implementing the recommendations of phase one of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
*At the time of its publication, the organisation was known as the Local Government Group
17 February 2022
Hostel ordeal continues, despite ombudsman’s ‘significant injustice’ ruling
A woman who has been forced to live with her disabled daughter in an inaccessible hostel for more than three years says she can see no end to their ordeal, despite an ombudsman ruling that her local council had caused them “significant injustice”.
Zara Rahimi* says her teenage daughter Aisha* has had numerous seizures and falls while using their bedsit’s cramped shower room, while Zara has damaged her back when trying to protect her.
The regular testing of the hostel’s fire alarm system – without warning – has also caused Aisha to have further seizures, and it has left her terrified and struggling with significant depression and anxiety.
Zara said they have been left for more than three years in living conditions which are “very dangerous” and are putting her daughter’s life at risk, with no support.
It was only in January this year that Hammersmith and Fulham council finally agreed to warn Zara in advance when the alarms would be going off, so she could ensure her daughter – who is autistic, has a sensory disorder, and has learning difficulties – was wearing headphones to block out the noise, or they could leave the building.
Zara has even been threatened with eviction after she has been unable to evacuate their bedsit – because Aisha was having a seizure – when fire alarms have been set off by other tenants smoking drugs in the hostel in the early hours of the morning.
Aisha has also had just seven months of education in the last three years.
Zara said: “It is just a living nightmare. We are being treated very badly.”
She believes the council is victimising her for raising complaints about the way she and her daughter have been treated, some of which have been upheld by a council complaint panel.
Zara also believes the council has breached her rights over the way it has dealt with her complaints.
She said: “The council has discriminated against us, victimised me and I am being treated badly for simply raising legitimate complaints against the failing of the system.
“I am severely traumatised by the way the council is treating me and my daughter.”
She first approached Hammersmith and Fulham council for help in 2018 after they had to leave their home because constant loud music being played by their neighbours was causing Aisha to have seizures.
They moved into the bedsit in the council-run hostel as a “temporary” solution in November 2018.
But it then took 10 months for the council’s occupational therapist to conclude that the cramped accommodation was unsuitable.
Even then, the council failed to respond to the occupational therapist’s report for another three months.
The local authority initially insisted that the bedsit was suitable for Zara and her daughter, but a few days later, in January 2019, it finally accepted it was unsuitable, after its medical adviser reviewed their case.
Despite claiming it was placing them on the accelerated transfer list, the council failed to do this for another 13 months.
It later claimed there was a shortage of suitable accommodation in the area, while also blaming the impact of the pandemic.
But the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has now found that the council’s failure to place them in suitable housing caused Zara and Aisha a “significant injustice”.
It ruled that the council must apologise to Zara and pay her £250 for every month she has been living in unsuitable accommodation, and that it must continue to do so while she is living in unsuitable housing.
The council has agreed to the ombudsman’s recommendations.
But three months on from the ruling, Zara and Aisha are still living in the hostel, and Hammersmith and Fulham council has told Zara there is no chance of them moving “in the foreseeable future”.
She told DNS that she has no faith in the council finding them suitable housing, and that she believed the council would prefer to keep paying £250 a month in compensation.
She added: “No amount of money will make up for the suffering the council has put us through.”
A council spokesperson said: “We reiterate our apology to [Zara] and her family.
“We acknowledge the ombudsman’s findings and have acted on all the recommendations.
“We have considered the family for alternative accommodation on four previous occasions. However, the properties proved to be unsuitable.
“There continues to be a severe shortage of appropriate and affordable accommodation for people with the family’s needs but we have now identified a suitable home and hope to arrange a viewing with the family soon, once contractors confirm it is safe to do so.
“In the meantime, we will continue to support [Zara] and her family before and after they move.”
*Not their real names
17 February 2022
‘Tokenistic’ service-user involvement must be addressed, says report
A new report highlights the importance of involving disabled people in planning and delivering services, but also the barriers they face when trying to share their lived experience.
The report, by the disabled people’s and service-user network Shaping Our Lives (SOL), says that those running involvement events do not always have the experience or knowledge to involve disabled people “meaningfully and accessibly”.
These events – allowing disabled people to have their say in the policies and services that affect their lives – could include a survey about a local health service, taking part in a focus group with a local authority, or sharing lived experience with students on a social work degree course.
SOL said such involvement could be a one-off consultation, a series of events, a group attended regularly, or a partnership where service-users and service-providers work together to co-produce a service or research study.
The Tickboxes and Tokenism report says the inclusive involvement of disabled people and members of other marginalised communities in such activity is “critical” in promoting “system and social change”.
In a survey for the report, two-thirds of those who responded – and 100 per cent of BSL-users who took part – said they needed their access and support requirements to be organised in advance of any involvement activity.
The survey was conducted last year as part of the Inclusive Involvement Movement project, funded by the National Lottery Community Fund.
More than half said they had faced difficulty having their access and support needs met, including reasonable notice of events and opportunities, papers provided in advance, an accessible venue, the option of remote participation in an event, transport expenses to be paid, and payment made for participation.
Some of those who took part in the survey reported that when they fed back negative experiences about involvement it was “sometimes unwelcome and prevented by organisations”, which left some people “feeling used and believing that the involvement process was tokenistic”.
Many survey respondents said that they “needed to know that their involvement would make a difference” and wanted event organisers “to feed back to them the changes implemented as a result of the work”.
Nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) of those surveyed said they found it difficult to find involvement opportunities with organisations such as the NHS, central government, local authorities and charities.
And many of those who took part said they needed to be listened to and for their input to have an impact.
The report concludes: “Increasing the spirit of true collaboration between experts with lived experience and organisations is achievable though greater communication, access provision, sensitivity, and flexibility, and through listening to the lived experiences of members of the disabled community and their carers.”
In a foreword to the report, SOL’s co-chair, Professor Peter Beresford, says evidence suggests that policymakers and services are not “walking the walk” when it comes to service-user engagement – otherwise known as public participation.
He says that too many disabled people are not able to take part in such engagement with the support and access they need.
Beresford says: “It is vital these findings are listened to by government, policymakers and local services.
“That way we will begin to get the whole picture from disabled people in all our diversity and begin to make the change and difference to people’s lives that is now so urgently needed.”
As a result of the survey findings, SOL has launched a new tool to help people who want to share their lived experience.
The My Involvement Profile allows people to record their skills, lived experience knowledge and experience of engagement, involvement, co-production and research, and explain their access requirements, with support from SOL if needed.
They can then share their profile with organisers of involvement activities.
SOL also has an Involvement Opportunities Board, which advertises engagement, involvement, co-production and research opportunities “for people who want to have a say and influence in health and social care”.
17 February 2022
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
Lifting all Covid restrictions will have a “disproportionate impact” on vulnerable people, experts from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) have warned: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sage-boris-johnson-covid-mps-england-b2013525.html
More than half a million people with conditions compromising their immune systems risk becoming “the pandemic’s forgotten victims” as Boris Johnson lifts the final remaining COVID-19 restrictions, charities have warned: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-plan-vulnerable-charities-johnson-b2016536.html
A disabled woman woke to find the disabled parking space outside her house had been vandalised. In a photo shared with the Echo, the word “disabled” painted on the tarmac has been painted over so it now just reads “abled”. The shocking incident was branded by some as a disability hate crime: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/womans-parking-spot-vandalised-disability-23091728?fbclid=IwAR1LpMmLyZEYGm22Z1wmuYJxioeTAQecuFYvHNdhIhahqohkE_ikVwu77wg
Disabled children and young people should get 20 minutes of exercise each day and strength and balance activity three times a week, in the first ever physical activity guidelines released for them by the UK’s four chief medical officers. The recommendations, underpinned by research from Durham University, the University of Bristol and Disability Rights UK, note that the health and wellbeing benefits include stronger muscles and improved confidence: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/16/disabled-children-should-exercise-for-20-minutes-a-day-first-uk-guidelines-say
17 February 2022
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
