Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights Archives - Centre for Adults' Social Care - Analysis, Information and Dispute Resolution

I care for a disabled adult and I’ve heard social workers claim it would be more cost effective to put him in residential care. I understand the council can’t force this but are they able to stop paying or limit/reduce his care funding to indirectly leave him with no choice?

Leave a Comment / Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 5 the right to liberty, Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Charging and financial assessment, Choice of Accommodation post Care Act, Commissioner's circumstances - reductions due to financial resources difficulties & variations RE the manner of meeting needs, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Due process requirements associated with Direct Payments and Health Budgets, Due process rights in care planning, Duties and Discretions, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Fees Issues with the Public Sector, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Issues of importance to social care service providers, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), The conditions on which choice of accommodation depends, The irrelevance of a council's financial resources for whether a need is met; relevant only for HOW, The significance of an arbitarily/indefensibly low rate to meet a person's need for Choice of Accommodation challenges, Top ups and Additional Payments / CASCAIDr

First of all, they CAN do this – cost effectiveness is a lawful consideration to inform the council’s decision as to what to offer. But they have to go through hoops in the Care Act, like finding somewhere that’s actually suitable, with a vacancy that DOES cost less for a proper package of care, with […]

I care for a disabled adult and I’ve heard social workers claim it would be more cost effective to put him in residential care. I understand the council can’t force this but are they able to stop paying or limit/reduce his care funding to indirectly leave him with no choice? Read More »

Isn’t it discriminatory and intrusive that disabled people have to have all our disability related expenses scrutinised. Other people don’t have to justify every single thing they do or buy?

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 8 ECHR, Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Charging and financial assessment, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Disability Related Expenditure, Discrimination in relation to Article 8 Rights, DRE Q&As, Human Rights in health and Social Care, Human Rights principles relevant to non-commissioned services, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Q&As on Disability Related Expenditure / CASCAIDr

The dignity and privacy argument has been tried but has failed because the law in this country is that all charging is discretionary and that unless you go through the means test you can be deemed to be able to pay the full cost. Therefore being means tested is the only way to obtain the

Isn’t it discriminatory and intrusive that disabled people have to have all our disability related expenses scrutinised. Other people don’t have to justify every single thing they do or buy? Read More »

SSG v Liverpool City Council (22 October 2002) (unreported)

Leave a Comment / Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one’s human rights, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, How the Care Act fits in with the Mental Health Act (and s117 aftercare), Human Rights in health and Social Care, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning / Gabe

Mental health – nearest relative – human rights – discrimination In a case settled by consent and approved by the High Court on 22 October 2002, the government has accepted that the interpretation of the provisions for naming the ‘nearest relative’ under MHA 1983, discriminated against homosexual couples, contrary to art 14 of the European

SSG v Liverpool City Council (22 October 2002) (unreported) Read More »

Rose, R (on the application of) v Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group [2014] EWHC 1182 (Admin)

Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one’s human rights, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Exception-making and discrimination, Fettering and Exception making, Human Rights in health and Social Care, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, The difference between a policy in relation to a power, and a rule, and why the former must not become the latter / Gabe

Ms Elizabeth (‘the Claimant’) suffered from a severe form of Crohn’s disease, and her condition was deteriorating significantly. Her doctors at King’s College Hospital recommended that bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy was carried out, with the expectation of bringing the disease into remission. However, it was a probable outcome of this therapy that the Claimant would

Rose, R (on the application of) v Thanet Clinical Commissioning Group [2014] EWHC 1182 (Admin) Read More »

R (on the application of MA & Others) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions and Equality & Human Rights Commission [2014] EWCA Civ 13

Leave a Comment / Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, How housing rights fit in with the Care Act, Human Rights principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) / Gabe

The claimants appealed against the refusal of judicial review of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”) and the introduction of the “bedroom criteria”. The 2012 Regulations had the effect of reducing the eligible rent, for the purpose of calculating housing benefit, where the number of bedrooms exceeds the number to which the

R (on the application of MA & Others) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions and Equality & Human Rights Commission [2014] EWCA Civ 13 Read More »

P v SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL and SURREY DOWNS CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP (2015)

Leave a Comment / Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 5 the right to liberty, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Human Rights in health and Social Care, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning / Gabe

Keywords: DoLS; least restrictive; best interests decision making; duration of DoLS authorisation. The case was brought by P’s mother (acting as his litigation friend), who was also his relevant person’s representative in respect of the standard DoLS authorisation in issue. P, a young adult with severe learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder, was placed in

P v SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL and SURREY DOWNS CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP (2015) Read More »

North West Lancashire Health Authority, ex p A, D and G [2000] 1 WLR 977 (CA)

Leave a Comment / Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Duties and Discretions, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, The irrelevance of a council's financial resources for whether a need is met; relevant only for HOW / Gabe

Resources – policy A health authority is entitled to decide how to allocate resources but public law requires that it accurately assesses the nature and seriousness of the relevant illness, determines the effectiveness of treatment and gives proper effect to that assessment and that determination in the formulation and individual application of its policy. Decisions

North West Lancashire Health Authority, ex p A, D and G [2000] 1 WLR 977 (CA) Read More »

JS & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2013] EWHC 3350

Leave a Comment / Article 1 of the First Protocol respect for property, Article 1 of the First Protocol respect for property, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Human Rights in health and Social Care, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) / Gabe

The claimants were three single parents and each of their youngest children, and the adults were all in receipt of housing benefit. MG lived in a flat with her four sons, and was unable to work due to both her illiteracy and obligation to care for her youngest child of 12 months. The effect of

JS & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2013] EWHC 3350 Read More »

CAMERON MATHIESON (A DECEASED CHILD BY HIS FATHER CRAIG MATHIESON) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK & PENSIONS (2015)

Leave a Comment / Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning / Gabe

Keywords: Disability discrimination; Benefits; Services whilst in hospital Withdrawing Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from a child after an in-patient stay of more than 84 days was found to be discriminatory (ECHR article 14). Social Security (DLA) Regulations 1991 reg. 8(1) provided for the withdrawal of DLA from a child after a hospital stay of more

CAMERON MATHIESON (A DECEASED CHILD BY HIS FATHER CRAIG MATHIESON) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK & PENSIONS (2015) Read More »