At the Civil Justice Centre yesterday parents of disabled adults had to contain themselves as Salford Council's barrister, Paul Greatorex, argued that almost everyone was happy with the arrangements made since the Council ceased transport for severely disabled adults, and that a final decision had not been made to close the Passenger Transport Unit.
Given that parents and carers have had letters stating that the service is ceasing, that people had tried to appeal the decision, that there have been petitions, demonstrations, rallies and even a call-in by Salford councillors against the Council's decision, both the claimants and their supporters were desperate to shout something out but kept their cool – while it was left to their QC, Ian Wise, to roast Salford Council's `absurd' stance.
On behalf of two disabled claimants - Michael Robson and Jennifer Barrett – law firm Irwin Mitchell is challenging, via a judicial review, the Salford Council cut to its transport unit for disabled adults on three grounds - that the Council failed to assess users of the transport service adequately; that the consultation around the cut was flawed; and that there was a breach of equality duty under the terms of Section 149 of the Equality Act in which the Council failed to properly assess the impact of the decision on disabled people.
The QC began his attack on Salford Council arguing that the crucial question was how disabled adults could get to their day centres and respite centres as, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act there is a clause that local authorities should make provision for this `need'.
He explained that the alternatives put forward by the Council were not viable, would be severely detrimental to disabled people and their aging parents and carers, and that the potential impact would be profound. The alternatives include getting taxis, Ring and Ride, public transport or the families and carers transporting their loved ones themselves.
To back up his assertions of non-viability, the QC read out witness statements from service users' families on the impact on their sons and daughters, who had everything from epilepsy to Down's Syndrome... "It's devastating, there's no doubt that he would deteriorate rapidly"... "she needs 24 hour support, taxis and Ring and Ride are not suitable"..."There are potential dangers"..."I would either have to give up work or put him in care"...
"Surely disabled people will be put at risk and profoundly affected by the decision of the local authority" said the QC "The local authority itself recognised that for forty people the service would be unsuitable and the numbers may increase for those who the suggested alternatives aren't viable.
"There are a significant number of people with no apparent alternative means to access their day centres – over two hundred" he added "And there is a danger that people are being forced to use alternative transport that puts them at risk. There is an obligation to make sure the service is suitable and safe."
He argued that the situation had arisen because of Salford Council's `flawed' and `cavalier' approach to the cut and quoted law points that a `local authority must take all reasonable steps to reach agreement' – not to present a fait accompli, but by consensus.
In Michael Robson's case, a tick box assessment concluded that he could get to the day centres by Ring and Ride or taxi or mobility car – but there was no assessment of risks, no mention of CRB checks on those who might transport him, nothing about the number of people (two) needed to transfer him from home to the transport to the day centre, nothing about risks from using untrained staff, nothing about the amount of support his elderly mother could provide and no outside experts were brought in to give an opinion. There was no attempt to involve Michael himself or his mum in the process, nor were they given a copy of the assessment....
... "This is not normal in a consensus approach" argued the QC "There was no realistic support plan to meet Michael's need."
A similar exercise was carried out in Jennifer Barrett's case too, where there was no attempt to engage her carer in the process and a report focussed on how to get Jennifer's large wheelchair in the back of a Ford Mondeo – "That was it!" scoffed the QC "They failed to address real difficulties and failed to carry out assessments in breach of common law and assessment guidelines."
Meanwhile, the official consultation into the cut to transport by Salford Council never even mentioned that the Passenger Transport Unit was to close...
"The consultees were led up the garden path and were consulted on something other than was being proposed" said the QC "It was unfair as to be unlawful. The approach of the local authority flies in the face of a proper consultation duty....The sense of injustice in this context is exacerbated by being consulted on the wrong questions."
The Community Impact Assessment done by the Council failed to see any negatives or potential problems that it's decision might have caused, argued the QC "And this is an Impact Assessment!" he laughed "The local authority says that it has identified the risks but the reports for Jennifer and Michel prove that they didn't."
In summing up, Ian Wise QC said that the Council had failed to gather proper information that was "so basic and so fundamental that the decision can't stand".
The judge asked whether if he accepted the QC's criticism of the assessment process `what relief should be done?'.
The QC replied that there was risk that the Council's decision to cut the transport would place people in an unsafe position...and demanded a quashing order.
In response, Salford Council's barrister, Paul Greatorex, objected to the heartfelt witness statements from parents and carers of disabled adults, arguing that they "were not relevant".
He added, to much laughter in the public gallery, that it would be "unfair" to suggest that some of the people were being forced into unsuitable transport, that there had been an "intensive process for discussion" and that "process had been followed".
He argued that that 172 out of 209 families had made alternative arrangement for transport, that 37 cases were outstanding and implied that people were happy, adding that a "final decision has not been made in respect of these two claimants or any of the 37..."
The barrister kept repeating - to gasps of disbelief from those who had received letters telling that the service would cease – that "a final decision has not been taken".
At this point even the judge joined in... "The two claimants were told that they would no longer get transport" he said "To me this reads like a final decision has been made, it doesn't read like it's something provisional..."
The Council's barrister explained that "it might be that a vehicle is kept on from either a private provider or the Council".
These assertions were lambasted by the claimants' QC who said that "it's always been understood that the Passenger Transport Unit would cease, so to say that no decision has been made is not correct...if they've reversed that decision to cease it's news to us. Plainly the decision has been made."
He then rounded on the Council's barrister... "Two score times he's said that people are happy with the current arrangements...that everyone's happy" He reminded the court that, according to one witness statement read out, a parent was told that she wasn't allowed to appeal the Council's decision... "We've no idea how many people were told that they couldn't appeal" he said.
"The assertion that everyone's happy is contentious" he said "This appeal was launched because alternative arrangements were not in place and there was no effective remedy for my clients – and no prospect of the Passenger Transport Unit being reinstated. Nothing that's been suggested will meet the needs of my clients."
He rounded on Salford Council's "cavalier" attitude to its assessments, and its "absurd" consultation... "It's difficult to imagine that they asked the wrong question"...and argued that people had been "misled".
He demanded a quashing order on Salford Council's decision to cease its Passenger Transport Unit for the severely disabled adults of Salford.
The judge will make his decision and convey it next week.
For a full background see previous Salford Star articles...
* Salford Mayor gets chauffeured by disability cuts driver - click here
* Salford Council empty bus madness as vulnerable forced to find own way to day centres - click here
* Salford Council in High Court over cuts to transport for disabled adults - click here
* Mums of disabled adults tell Salford Mayor to spend a day with them - click here
* Fury as Salford Councillors reject cuts call-in - click here
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
