Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Day Centre closures / restriction of places for severely disabled adults – can we fight this?
Our council decided to close 3 weekday Day Centres across the borough, replacing them with a single centre, in an isolated area, with less places available, and only for the most severely disabled.
Those living in residential homes are not eligible, as their homes are supposed to provide them with equivalent services, e.g. sensory lighting, snoozelum rooms, etc. A FOI request on the facilities available was effectively not answered, as of course these poor people don’t have access to those services – no money has been provided to buy them.
Those living at home are likely to have their attendance days reduced, as there are a maximum 70 places, 30-35 daily and there are more than 70 people with substantial and critical disabilities.
Social Services were determined to push this through to achieve millions in savings and despite a large campaign and petition, the Cabinet were bamboozled into voting it through in Jan 2012.
The whole process was flawed; the most unforgivable action was deciding all this was going to happen without assessing the number of people who need this service now and in the future – the quote “the council is confident that 70 places will be enough”. The assessments for eligibility have just started – they will conveniently find that only 70 people qualify.
We have lots of evidence that proper procedures weren't followed. Is there anything we can do?
Those living in residential homes are not eligible, as their homes are supposed to provide them with equivalent services, e.g. sensory lighting, snoozelum rooms, etc. A FOI request on the facilities available was effectively not answered, as of course these poor people don’t have access to those services – no money has been provided to buy them.
Those living at home are likely to have their attendance days reduced, as there are a maximum 70 places, 30-35 daily and there are more than 70 people with substantial and critical disabilities.
Social Services were determined to push this through to achieve millions in savings and despite a large campaign and petition, the Cabinet were bamboozled into voting it through in Jan 2012.
The whole process was flawed; the most unforgivable action was deciding all this was going to happen without assessing the number of people who need this service now and in the future – the quote “the council is confident that 70 places will be enough”. The assessments for eligibility have just started – they will conveniently find that only 70 people qualify.
We have lots of evidence that proper procedures weren't followed. Is there anything we can do?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Waxwing. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nasty but very little that can do done, the budget has to be drastically cut .
Worse will follow. The country simply does not have the money to keep funding it. I know pensioners that are now stranded in their homes as the subsidised bus service has been withdrawn , not owning a car now means not being able to even get to a shop for many.
Worse will follow. The country simply does not have the money to keep funding it. I know pensioners that are now stranded in their homes as the subsidised bus service has been withdrawn , not owning a car now means not being able to even get to a shop for many.
Your best bet is to try and get 30 minutes of a solicitor's time for free via the CAB. A judicial review has to be triggered via an application to the administrative division of the High Court and that is going to need legal assistance.
One of the grounds for the granting of a judicial review is if there is evidence of procedural impropriety. That typically happens if the public body has not consulted adequately prior to making a decision. Different decisions require different types of consultation. That is I think what happened with Birmingham CC.
One of the grounds for the granting of a judicial review is if there is evidence of procedural impropriety. That typically happens if the public body has not consulted adequately prior to making a decision. Different decisions require different types of consultation. That is I think what happened with Birmingham CC.
1 to 3 of 3
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.