BREAKING NEWS: Second Court Case On ILF Closure
Judicial review launched of repeat DWP decision to close the Independent Living Fund
The Department of Work and Pensions is facing a judicial review challenge by a group of disabled people of the decision of Minister for Disabled People Mike Penning to close the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in June 2015, taken just weeks after the Court of Appeal quashed a previous, almost identical decision as being unlawful. ILF provides vital support and funding to some 18,000 severely disabled people in the UK to enable them to live independent and fulfilling lives. To be eligible people must already receive a substantial care package from local authority social services, but ILF funding provides a top-up for those with particularly high support needs. The ILF system was set up in 1988 in recognition of the fact that more severely disabled people are at high risk of social exclusion and face particular barriers to independent living and working, but their needs in this regard were not adequately addressed by council provision with its focus on meeting basic needs. The claimants, represented by Deighton Pierce Glynn and Scott-Moncrieff & Associates, fear that loss of ILF support would threaten their right to live with dignity, and they may be forced into residential care or lose their ability to participate in work and everyday activities on an equal footing with other people.
The Court of Appeal had ruled in November 2013 that the previous closure decision had breached the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act because the Minister had not been given adequate information to be able to properly assess the practical effect of closure on the particular needs of ILF users and their ability to live independently.
However following the new closure decision announced on 6th March 2014, the DWP admitted that in considering the proposal once again it had not consulted with any organisations or individuals outside of Government. It had not gathered any additional information from local authorities or other sources about what level or type of support former ILF users would receive from social services once the ILF element was removed and how many people would be likely to go into residential care or lose their ability to work or study.
The new legal challenge is on the same basis as the first that once again the Minister had not discharged the public sector equality duty because he did not have adequate information to be able to properly understand what the impact of closure would be on the particular people affected. This made it impossible to properly weigh up the pros and cons of the proposal with the necessary focus on removing disadvantages for disabled people, meeting their needs, increasing participation in public life and advancing equality that the law requires in all decisions by Government.
The Claimants are asking the court to again quash the decision to close the Fund.
Same Difference 
Reblogged this on Benefit tales.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sdbast.
LikeLike
To the group that are challenging the DWP decision to close the ILF, I say keep chipping away at them because when questioned on their decisions they fall apart – they can be beaten.
LikeLike
There was enough disabled people already not getting the help they need then the Tories come in a eat away what little help there was. Its not fair and its not right, but they will try their hardest to make it legal at least and convince the general public that this is what they want. It needs stopping disabled people have lost too much already.
LikeLike
The fight is worth it – and I agree with Kim Holly when she says that they can be beaten.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Jay's Journal and commented:
Unlawful again and again…
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
After the DWP has decided that its proposed abolition of the Independent Living Fund is legal, despite the ruling of an appeal court that it isn’t, they are once again facing another legal appeal by the disabled. The government seem determined to push this through. And we must be equally determined to stop them.
LikeLike
they our unelected government will just jackboot their way forward law its not for them it seems they are jeff3
LikeLike
I hadn’t realised that the ILF was created in 1988. How come these Tories are trying to do away with something brought in by their beloved Thatcher? Must have been the one thing she did bring in that was worth keeping.
LikeLike
tories also brought in dla
LikeLike
Australia has copied both cuts done under Coalition in UK and in America, so despite the huge wealth and not being in recession, the government there is cutting the state pension, disability, anything to do with state help and even cutting the minimum wage for those beginning work at 18. All to give zero national debt, when the nation can more than pay its way.
This is the fate of the UK if Scotland cannot go Free and save its own population from the Coalition in London.
And of the nation encompassing the leftover UK that does not start talking about new socialist parties in its left wing blogs that offer any socialism, which is the care of the vulnerable, old, poor, out of work, benefit sanctioned or lost.
Some are listed on my personal website, including the banned before May 22 election party political video never broadcast on any TV channel:
http://www.theswansnewparty.org.uk
No party, not even the new socialist ones, offers the millions of women who have either begun to lose state pension payout or who lose most or all of their state pension with current law or that coming in 2016.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
In amongst the disabled / chronic sick are people aged 60, who because of raised retirement age are hit by the bedroom tax, loss of benefits either disability or Jobseekers, WCA, PIP, ESA (work or support) and so forth, and liable for the slavery of forced labour called Workfare.
There are over 23 million people aged over 50 in the UK. The belief is that they are all wealthy, early retired on good money, in good health, and live the life of riley.
Women tend to be poorer than men and have suffered even more than men under usuterity.
http://theswansnewparty.blogspot.co.uk/p/male-politicians.html
The majority of women over 50 -66 not in work is due to being disabled and/or chronic sick. Half of women are within the working poor. Half of women work in the public sector, yet are or will be two thirds of the job losses.
By the way, you might care to spread the word about my petition, not because it is going to change the swinging brick for a heart of the Coalition or the irrelevance of the Lib Dems who last by-election got lowest votes in a quarter of a century, but to change Labour.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on amnesiaclinic and commented:
Keep chipping away! Well done!!!
LikeLike
At the consultation on the closing of the ILF, 75% of those commenting said they wanted the ILF to remain independent of local authorities. Despite this Government still went ahead to close it, what sort of consultation was that ?
At every ILF review I have attended on behalf of people we support, I have asked the local authority rep if the same amount of funding will continue for the person with the disability when the funding is passed to them. The answer has always been “we cannot guarantee that” What does that tell you ?
LikeLike