This is the detailed application I have lodged with the High Court requesting a full Judicial Review of Hertfordshire County Council's changes to policy on charging for care together with cuts in services and the slashing of funding to the very third party organisations who are expected to pick up the slack as from April Fools Day 2011 when the cuts start to bite.Case Lodged 28th February 2011 at the Royal Courts of JusticeDetailed Statement of GroundsHertfordshire County Council have clearly failed to meet their duties under Section 49(a) of the Disability Discrimination Act as amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 commonly known as the "Disability Equality Duty" (DED) which will form part of the "General Duty" under the provisions of the Equalities Act 2010 which comes into force in April 2011.The consultation on proposals to change the Council's Non-residential Services charging policy, carried out between August and October of 2010, failed to meet the standards required under the DED and the provisions of the Department of Health Guidance for Councils with Social Services Responsibilities issued in 2003.The Council have failed to have due regard of the government's announcements regarding additional funds which are being set aside precisely to offset the disadvantage disabled people and their carers face due to the austerity measures.The planned reductions in funding to organisations such as Hertfordshire Action on Disability and the Supporting People Service and proposed restructuring of The Money Advice unit have/or are being put through without any consultation with those directly affected and in direct contradiction of the stated rationale for changes to Non-residential Services policy.The changes in Non-residential charging policy are due to be implemented from 1st April 2011 it is therefore imperative that the issues raised in this application be resolved prior to that date given the chaos, uncertainty and distress to service users that will ensue if the changes are implemented and then have to be reversed at a later date. This is particularly true for the two grant funded bodies who are currently having to consider staff reductions and redundancies based on the reductions in their funding recently announced by Hertfordshire County Council.It is also in Hertfordshire County Council's best interests that this matter be resolved as a matter of urgency in order that suitable provision can be made for funding any shortfall in revenue and/or the need to provide additional grant aid over and above that now proposed to Hertfordshire Action on Disability and Community Support Services throughout the county as a result of any lawful consultation and reconsideration of the policies in question under this application for judicial review.As with the recent judicial review of the decision by the Leaders' Committee of London Councils to cut £10m from their £26.4m Grants Scheme, where it was held that decisions taken were unlawful because of failure to meet Public Sector Equality Duties, the result of this judicial review may well have far reaching implication for other local authorities and the bodies which they fund to provide services to disabled people.An urgent clarification of the law in regard to what constitutes a "lawful" consultation in relation to changes in policy relating to disabled people and or the subsequent consideration of that policy will, therefore, be of benefit to all the service users of other local authorities in England, many of whom are currently in the process of imposing similar increases to charges at the same time as reducing services to these disabled people and at the same time also reducing the level of funding provided to the third sector organisations expected to pick up the slack following those cuts.The interim order I am seeking is as follows:"It be ordered that changes to the Hertfordshire County Council's Non-residential care charging policy and reductions in funding to relevant grant aided providers of services to disabled people in Hertfordshire, such as Hertfordshire Action on Disability and Community Support Services, be put on hold pending the result of the judicial review and thereafter be subject to any further directions or orders made by the court in respect of the judicial review in question."Main Facts Relied on are as follows:1. The original "Consultation" Document sent out via letter on the 21st July 2010 (pg 54 - 56) stresses throughout that the main rationale for the changes is to avoid making cuts in front line services. However, later decisions by HCC will clearly impact on front line services due to cuts in funding of organisations that provide services to disabled people and most notably with the 50% cut in the budget for the Community Support Service.2. No mention is made at all about the inclusion of services provided by the Community Support Service to those in sheltered accommodation including those with extra care arrangements and/or those living in the community who none-the-less need to make use of their services from time to time like myself. In fact it was only the fact that I was considering moving into such sheltered housing myself whilst the consultation was underway that a member of staff "warned" me not to follow that option as they were aware of the implications for my net income if I was relying on the existing arrangements for Community Support.3. In fact HCC went even further and actually forbade front line workers discussing the changes to charging with this particular group with the only direct information about the impending changes being that contained in the letter from Community Support Services to clients dated 4th February despite the fact many in this group will be hardest hit by the changes as currently those on housing benefit are entitled to free support but will be subject to the full impact of the changes to the tune of approximately £55.00 per week in many cases (pg 91)4. Again no mention is made about the increase in charges for Meals on Wheels but this is included in the final report as though it had been part of the main consultation.5. Despite it being obvious that the main group affected by the changes will be exactly the same group as were hit by the original change to "fairer" charging i.e. single adults in receipt of the severe disability premium of Income support or the equivalent for those on pension credit as they will now be extremely likely to lose the entire amount of the premium in charges but the "worked examples" used during the consultation (and indeed also the current charging for care leaflets provided by county to potential service users) fail to clarify this.6. In effect HCC will now be taking the equivalent of the Carers allowance from disabled people even where they are only providing a few hours of care per week whereas those in receipt of Carers allowance have by definition to be providing a minimum of 35 hours of care per week to qualify.7. It is impossible to read the original consultation documents without being given the impression that those who will be being expected to pay more would be the people with the means to pay because they were relatively affluent when the reality is that it is those on Income support levels of income who will effectively have 100% of their "disposable" income taken from them.8. Whilst an albeit flawed consultation was carried out for some of the changes to the so called "Fairer" charging policy no such consultation has taken place with regard to the reductions if funding to key providers of support to disabled people which as recent case law has established is of itself a direct breach of the Disability and other Equality Duties the local authority has.9. Perhaps the most stark evidence that this consultation and the Equalities Impact assessment were little more than a tick box exercises is that simple fact that the original proposals as included in the consultation have passed into policy with only minor changes to the day to day running of the scheme with regard to appeals but which still do not provide a truly "independent" review other than via a complaint to the Ombudsman.10. Above all what is evidenced by all the documentation I have provided is that HCC have asked only "Can we do this?" and not asked the question "should we do this?" which should be the paramount concern of local authorities who are charged with helping to redress the disadvantage disabled people face rather than actually make matters worse for them.N.B. The change in the policy will increase charges for care dramatically, especially for those on benefits, with people like myself seeing an increase in costs from about £35 per week to £55 as from April Fools Day.Even worse for those current under the supported People Services in sheltered housing or extra care sheltered housing will see an increase from zero now (if they are in receipt of housing benefit) to the full charge of about £50 to £55 per week in one giant leap.As I said in my "Everest" thread over on Ouch this is a battle I have to fight, even if I lose, because at least then the local authority will know that their actions are being challenged and not simply hidden in this years budget as "efficiency savings" with no mention at all that services are being cut or that disabled people are facing dramatically increased charges and that third party organisations expected to pick up the slack have all had their funding slashed.For those wishing to follow the progress of the case the case number issued by the Administrative Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London is CO/1873/2011Further updates will follow as and when I have more news.As it says in the Bible: "Go though and do likewise". LOLPeter aka "Sociable""Go placidly..be gentle with yourself..strive to be happy"
Just received a copy of Hertfordshire Action on Disability's submission to the court confirming their support for my application and detailing the savage level of the cuts being imposed on them by HCC and the inevitable consequence for the disabled people in Hertfordshire who they seek to serve.In other news the High Court have had to delay considering the interim order for a few days more as HCC have yet to answer my application by way of an an Acknowledgement of Service, so it may be a week or so before this matter is actually condsidered by the Court.As always in these situations (I've been to judicial review a few times now) I am heartend by the fact the case is listed as:The Queen on the application of Peter John Farrington v Hertfordshire County CouncilCan't think of anyone better to have on one's side at a time like this even though in this case its a technicality of how the judicial review system works. :)
Peter aka "Sociable"
Great! Fantastic that you challenge them, and brilliant that you've used the successful London Councils' precedence.
very good submission too.
Be interested to know the outcome, but regardless - thanks for doing this.
tirza
Following todays article in Community Care regarding the possible ilegality of 1 in 10 Adult Social Care budgets:
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/08/31/117366/one-in-10-council-adult-social-care-budgets-may-be-illegal.htm
I thought it might be timely to revive this old thread.
Not least as I have now finally got a date for the oral "permissions" hearing of my request for a judicial review of Hertfordshire County Council's cuts and increased charges (as detailed above) and which will now be heard by the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand on November 22nd this year.
Please keep your fingers toes and eyes all crossed for me on the day. :)
Best of luck to you Peter. Please continue to keep us updated.
The Isle of Wight is the latest LA to be confronted in Court by two SU's over the non consultation before changes/cuts were implemented. As I understand it the action centres around the Mental Health Act provisions......though I am not a lawyer.
The Island is a particular region and is seeing swingeing cuts implemented by a newly arrived Director who hails from the mainland. Experience has shown that mainland ideas and attitudes do not work on an Island very well and by the time that has been discovered the implementer has moved on.......back to the mainland! (over 6 Directors and heads of adult services in the last 6 years.......)
Birmingham has also seen Court hearings though I do believe they have so far gone in favour of the LA rather than the SU plaintiffs...
promuso
PJ - the IOW action concerned the lack of 'due regard' to consultation IOW gave and in breach of the DDA - a common theme used in Birmingham case and also in a number of similarly successful challenges brough against cuts in SP.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/09/09/117416/Court-allows-challenge-to-council39s-rise-in-care.htm is a link to IOW case
Ah, thank you for that.
As a small point of interest, where does the *obligation* for a "due regard" process derive from....?
Is that from the Mental Health Act or some other legislation - Local Government.. for example?
Not all challenges have been succesful though..have they?
Will it lead to a case by case challenge where LA's just sort of *ignore* the ruling as in the Coughlan case?
Or will it lead to an overall change. Also, is it just a matter of putting the inevitable off ot does consultations really change the thrust and drive of the LA's policy...
PJ
The need for due regard stems from case law confirming a local authoritt's duties under the Equality Act and the specific individual legislation that preceeded it, in this case specifically the Disability Equality Duty under sect 25 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as ammended in 2005.
Some individual challeneges have failed but two or three key ones have suceeded most notably Birmingham and London challenges both of whicvhy support my own case but will not be binding on the current case as the judgements where at the same level and only judgements in higher courts have to befollowed by those below them.
I am hopeful that the naturew of my own casse might lead to some general clarification of the law perhaps by forcing it to the next tier by referrral to the Court of Appeal and eventually even the Supreme Court which has now taken over from the Law Lords as the Court of Final reort in the UK.
I should apologise for the delay in answer this and other questions but as you can see this time I have my "user" hat on and my level of disability had been keeping me from being active until now as my phisical condition has deteriorated and as is "normal" despite increased needs I have yet to be re-assessed let alone be lucky enough to be granted additional support. I am also, as I'm sure you can imagine, just a little worried I'm not exactly "flavour of the week, month or year with my local authority for having brought this particular challenge in the courts.
My return to active duty is timely though as I hope to be making the London Hardest-Hit protest tomorow (Sat 22nd October) and more importantly one month later i.e. 22nd November when the above JUdicial Review is scheduled to have its oral "permissions" hearing where I will be called on to justify the High Court actually hearing my application for Judical Review as a precursor to them actually considering the case in full at some later date.
hi good on you, i really hope you get a good result
i run a dom care service, more and more do we find S/W forcing people into care homes against their will.
i know they cannot do this legally but they always come up with the same argument that is;
If their care at home cost more than the cost of a care home they do not have to provide any care needs that go above this cost.
as they fulfilled their duty of care, If the S/U cannot afford to pay the difference then the s/w say they can be forced into a home under the safeguarding
procedures. the local authority are against cross party funding, and do everything to cut cost.
NHS continuning care will only provide four visits a day, and will not take over a full care package.
(we have tried this argument but they say funding will only provide four visits per day)
we have objected strongly on behalf of our clients several times, but we are dismissed as they say we have a conflict of intrest.
we have tried the independent advocy rout, but the local authority always find a way out..
they wear the clients down until they give up, this is taking advantage of a person when they are at their most vulnerable.
someone really needs to take this all they way to the top to the court of human rights.
we have a client who has two sons. they will not take no for an answer, they shout, scream, make a fuss. the s/s always back down and do not argue
with them,. but not everyone has someone to fight on their behalf and its so wrong.
Hi Peter aka Sociable
Have just caught up with this website after retiring early from Herts Adult care some 6 years ago when I saw the decline ! It used to have such a good reputation for its care .
So , I was astonished to learn from the guys I used work with; that Adult care is now run by Serco !!!!!!!!They used to deal with our saleries and pensions ,, but it was suddenly given over to another company . basically all private companies , so is this Adult care being privatised behind closed doors ??
Also seems that those guys I worked with are being offered redundacy packages now !!!!!!!!!!!!So who is left ?? They were the best and most experianced !!!!!!!!
Do you think Adult care has gone to a serco call centre ?
Some think to chew on ;;;;;;;; making front line workers redundant whilst Serco gets richer
Daffie ;; ex social worker .. not allowed to call myself a socail worker any more as registration has lapsed !!!!!!!!!!!
Hello
Firstly, I think that whilst cuts are inevitable, all should be done to challenge any decision that is unlawful.
Secondly, I would like to discuss this issue of SERCO as raised by Daffie. It is true that SERCO have won a tender to run SOME of adult services in Herts. SERCO have a number of responsibilites nationwide, many of these include tuped public duties. Whilst I agree that this is by no means ideal, and there will be some job losses, I would prefer there to be a cost cutting measure such as Herts workers being tuped to SERCO and the service is maintained, rather than the service being significantly cut and unable to provide effective services. Also SERCO are not taking over the whole of adult services, the majority of staff will remain as Herts CC employees. And believe me, it would be great if all could stay the same, and I am the first to say so; however, the current economic climate is such that changes have to be made. Change can be difficult and is often painful; however, Social Work has experienced similar cuts and economic restraints before and has survived, so the profession can survive again!
I agree that there is something about offering redundancy/retirement packages to the more mature end of the workforce; however, this does not always mean that they are the most experienced in the field. Equally, many councils are faced with the dilemma that their workforce are all within an age bracket, which means in 5-10 years the majority of the workforce will be of retirement age. Whilst I feel sorry for all those who are losing their jobs (be they 20 or 60), I also see this as an opportunity to harness the strength of the younger end of the workforce and enable them to develop their careers.
SW Student 87