Uncategorized

IS it always unlawful to cut a care package/budget, if a person’s needs haven’t CHANGED?

Comment

The Care and Support Alliance says that 29% of disabled 18 – 64-year-olds who rely on council funding have had their care funding cut over the last year. When Mencap challenges decisions, they are frequently reversed – probably because the Powers that Be KNOW that cuts made without due process or without a coherent rationale … Continue reading

IS it always unlawful to cut a care package/budget, if a person’s needs haven’t CHANGED?

»

Uncategorized

The implications of the Mencap win in the NMW appeal – not as straightforward as one might think!

2 Comments

CASCAIDr’s analysis on the successful Mencap appeal will be out ASAP on Community Care’s site, but for now, this post just covers the highlights. Mencap has won, and sleep in staff do not automatically get paid the NMW for every hour worked on a night shift. Merely being required to be present somewhere does not … Continue reading

The implications of the Mencap win in the NMW appeal – not as straightforward as one might think!

»

Uncategorized

A fantastic result – using real legal literacy – that will deter commissioners from driving people into care homes – and just before the Mencap decision on the NMW and sleep-ins might make care during the night beyond the means of most!

4 Comments

Press release received today NHS U-TURNS ON DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES Thirteen NHS organisations have agreed to review their NHS Continuing Healthcare policies following the threat of legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The U-turn resolves almost eight months of disagreements between the EHRC and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) across the UK over … Continue reading

A fantastic result – using real legal literacy – that will deter commissioners from driving people into care homes – and just before the Mencap decision on the NMW and sleep-ins might make care during the night beyond the means of most!

»

Care planning and budgets

CP v North East Lincolnshire Council [2018] – a judicial restatement of pre-Care Act legal principle about the transparency of, and requirement for, an explicit Personal Budget!

Comment

In this case a challenge was made about the provision for a 22-year-old woman, CP, with complex and multiple disabilities requiring round-the-clock care. CP’s parents and the local authority were also engaged in an FTT appeal about educational provision which had a bearing on what else was or might be needed. They continued Alternative Dispute … Continue reading

CP v North East Lincolnshire Council [2018] – a judicial restatement of pre-Care Act legal principle about the transparency of, and requirement for, an explicit Personal Budget!

»

Uncategorized

What CASCAIDr’s been up to in its first three months

2 Comments

CASCAIDr has been open just over three months now. To celebrate, we’ve done a case list covering all the most important community care cases that were ever heard, pre and post the Care Act, establishing solid, enforceable legal rights to care and support for people with complex conditions and disabilities. Here it is: CASES Template … Continue reading

What CASCAIDr’s been up to in its first three months

»

Uncategorized

Services to support an eligible disabled parent look after a baby – should the Adults’ or the Children’s services budget fund the meeting of needs? Or neither?

2 Comments

Would anyone care to engage with CASCAIDr, the charity, on an interesting stance we’ve come across in our first month – on a council NOT paying for services for a parent whose disability renders them unable to achieve the discharge of her responsibilities to a child? Here’s the scenario: A council says ‘You’re a long … Continue reading

Services to support an eligible disabled parent look after a baby – should the Adults’ or the Children’s services budget fund the meeting of needs? Or neither?

»

Uncategorized

Adult Social Care Myths to be busted by @CASCAIDr during its fundraising campaign 4-15 December

4 Comments

These are our favourites but we’ll vary them if there is a big demand for some others we’ve not yet come across: please email belinda@cascaidr.org.uk with your nominations • You can’t have an assessment – you couldn’t possibly qualify! • You can’t have an assessment unless you try prevention and re-ablement first (for years!) • … Continue reading

Adult Social Care Myths to be busted by @CASCAIDr during its fundraising campaign 4-15 December

»

Dodgy v Defensible?

FREE LINK to a webinar on the Care Act Judicial Reviews, so far!

Comment

I doubt that it has escaped the notice of this blog’s followers that I’m involved in starting a social and health care specialist legal advice charity called CASCAIDr. If you tweet, go to CASCAIDr’s aims and story and please plan to follow @CASCAIDr before the end of the month. It will launch in January, and … Continue reading

FREE LINK to a webinar on the Care Act Judicial Reviews, so far!

»

Uncategorized

A suggestion for CQC when it comes to scrutinise local authorities’ and CCG’s performance – why not focus on legal literacy?

2 Comments

Readers may be aware that CQC has started to scrutinise local authorities and CCGs in a programme of visits culminating in a report to the Secretary of State for Health. CQC normally regulates providers of care and health, but there is provision for this sort of ‘special’ review of commissioning, too, in the legal framework. … Continue reading

A suggestion for CQC when it comes to scrutinise local authorities’ and CCG’s performance – why not focus on legal literacy?

»

Uncategorized

Analysis of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Luke Davey’s unsuccessful Care Act case

4 Comments

Court of Appeal – Davey judgment is the link to the judgment of the Court of Appeal – in the first case to reach this level, so far, under the Care Act. Mr Davey has (not surprisingly, it has to be said, with all due respect to his legal team) lost his case. It is … Continue reading

Analysis of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Luke Davey’s unsuccessful Care Act case

»