|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:06:50 GMT 1
Publicly funded help changed Karen's family's life « Thread Started on Dec 15, 2010, 12:58pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is interesting about publicly funded advice is that, in many instances, it occurs within a framework of support and assistance that is not paid for out of the legal aid budget nor condoned as 'legal work' in any case. One positive consequence of this is that, where successful, the person assisted does not end up back in the same situation again within a short time once again needing publicly funded assistance The case study below is from Advocacy in Wirral (AIW), who provides publicly funded Welfare Benefits advice. The cost to the public purse for helping Karen was £167. Should the proposals to reform legal aid go ahead as planned, and the whole of the Welfare Benefits category of law removed from scope of funding, Karen would not be able to get this assistance. This is a true story of someone assisted a couple of months ago, please read on -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our client, whom we shall call Karen is a 47 year old female, living in the Wirral area with her son and daughter aged 17 and 14 respectively. On referral she had a diagnosis of depression and anxiety and the main issues on which she and I were to work was that she had had been turned down for employment and support allowance (ESA) and housing as she had been given a repossession date for her home due to non- payment of mortgage. At the initial meeting we completed the AIW paperwork, and it was stressed to Karen that she would be taking control of decisions made, although we would support her through those. As part of the initial set up paperwork, Karen and I signed the client agreement so that she was clear about what he could expect from the service. We also discussed confidentiality and Karen agreed to AIW’s policy both verbally and in writing. Karen was allowed to talk freely about her situation and described how she had been in a very abusive 15 year marriage until 2 years previously when she had gained the strength to end the relationship. She described how her former husband still remained in control of her life, still having keys to her house, the former family home, and access to the children. The last physical beating that she had received had been approximately 2 months prior to our initial meeting. She described struggling with the after effects of being controlled and beaten over such a sustained period of time. An action plan was discussed with Karen and it was agreed that we would work on three issues, finding a new home for her and her two children, appealing against the Department of Works and Pension’s (DWP) decision not to award her ESA and gaining her access to services to improve her confidence and help her take control of the anxiety and depression. We completed the initial paperwork to start the appeal process off and looked at the kind of properties that Karen would be able to afford to rent. A brief Cognitive Behavioural Therapy assessment was also undertaken and a referral for Talking Changes, the local Primary Care Mental Health Team, was also completed and sent off. During the appointment Karen appeared to have a realisation that the date for repossession of the former family home was looming and also that when she found a new home her ex husband would not have a key and therefore would not be able to enter the property without her permission. She made an undertaking to take control of the situation and find a new home, that she would be happy to move into with her children, before the repossession date, which she then went on to do. She described moving into her new home as a turning point for her emotionally and actively engaged with services making statements such as “my kids deserve better than a sad excuse of a mother just lying there waiting to die”. Finally, nine months after our initial meeting we attended a tribunal for her ESA together. I was amazed to find a lady waiting for me in the waiting room who was smartly dressed, had washed her hair and was wearing make-up, and was utterly delighted when she told me that she felt that she had made that much progress that she had signed off Employment Support Allowance the previous day and had gone on to Job Seekers Allowance. Karen won the appeal and is currently sourcing some voluntary work to ease herself back into the job market gently. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In total, AIW received £167 + VAT for this case as a fixed fee from the Legal Services Commission upon the case being closed « Last Edit: Dec 15, 2010, 8:39pm by Patrick » Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=43#ixzz1NggOgEN0
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:07:45 GMT 1
Re: Mr X From Manchester « Thread Started on Dec 5, 2010, 3:11pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr B was a client that failed a ESA medical on 0 points. He had lodged an appeal. The Client approached us for help. We had a long doscussion with the client under the legal help scheme discussing his abilities as he stated them and the ESA criteria. The client was adamant that he wanted to appeal before our discussion. After it he realised that his case was almost impossible and that with advice other options could be better. After the above advice the appeal was withdrawn by the client saving client, DWP, and Tribunal Service a lot of bother and expenditure. But whos bothered about that post review. « Last Edit: Dec 5, 2010, 7:37pm by baldrick » Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged nickd MyLegal Team member is online Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 321 Re: Timely legal advice can save costly legal acti « Reply #1 on Dec 9, 2010, 12:16am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baldrick illustrates how Legal Help saves the State money! It's often wrongly assumed that agencies, by default, encourage the client to pursue the appeal option. Specialist help can often pinpoint a case where the client can receive a knowledgeable explanation of how the law applies, when the client has it explained to them, the outcome can be such that the client realises they don't meet the criteria. So long as this is correctly explored with the client and all potential grounds of entitlement are considered, the outcome is that a costly appeal can be averted. This reduces the Tribunals Service case load (which is currently overstretched) and saves a great deal of money. It can apply to many other types of dispute where specialist help looks at the constructive merits of the case. Please use this as your opportunity to tell us about other examples of how Legal Help saves money, but also continue to keep us informed of the many beneficial outcomes achieved with Legal Aid intervention. We need as many examples of the positive values of Legal Aid as possible in order to challenge the proposed reforms. This your forum and your opportunity, so please let's hear what you have to say. Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=37#ixzz1Nggbcqq7
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:09:10 GMT 1
Almost street homeless with a 2 year old « Thread Started on Dec 3, 2010, 2:57pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms M is Polish and does not speak or read English very well. She has lived in Britain since November 2005 with her husband and worked as a cleaner and then ran their own business - a small Polish food shop - between 2007 and 2009, but unfortunately the business did not succeed. She has a two year old child. Due to domestic violence last year she split up from her husband (who had always dealt with all paperwork for her) and worked hard at several low-paid part-time jobs to pay the bills. Eventually she managed to claim Child Benefit and Tax Credits, but was unable to claim Housing or Council Tax benefits because she did not apply to become a Registered Worker under the Workers Registration Scheme (she had been told in 2007 that the self-employed did not have to register as workers). This meant she couldn’t afford to feed her child and pay the council tax and rent on her flat and so arrears rose. She was served with notices and court proceedings but could not understand them and didn’t know what to do. An eviction was scheduled in September 2010 and when the bailiff arrived she had nowhere to go. Because of her language difficulties she had not even realised that she had to leave that day and broke down. A friend called a local councillor in desperation. He had connections with the local CAB and persuaded the bailiff to give her 24 hours to get advice. Following urgent telephone advice from the LSC-funded housing solicitor a court hearing was set in 2 days time. Even though she had a young daughter the local authority declined to provide any temporary accommodation at this point as the law stated she was still ineligible for homelessness assistance due to her non-registration. At the hearing the judge had no general discretion to stop the eviction, but the LSC solicitor identified a technical flaw in the papers around whether a deposit had been properly lodged and the case was therefore adjourned for evidence until November, buying a vital breathing space. In the interim Ms M was assisted in making an application to become a registered worker. After a few weeks this was successful and this meant that she could claim housing benefit and also have access to local authority emergency housing. Just before the adjourned hearing she was offered a tenancy by the local authority and a consent order giving her time to move was agreed with the landlord. Had Ms M been correctly advised to register when her business closed, none of this would have occurred. But had she not received intensive and specialist legal aid-funded help at the point of eviction, it is likely that her child would have been placed in care as the family were street-homeless that day. Although the government will say this type of case will stay in scope, if the 10% pay cut reforms go through the solicitor service will no longer be available; it is barely viable for the CAB to run it on present rates. Civil housing pay rates have been frozen for the last 16 years! « Last Edit: Dec 6, 2010, 1:35pm by spongebob » Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged crc Global Moderator member is offline Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 2 Re: Almost street homeless with a 2 year old « Reply #1 on Dec 8, 2010, 10:53am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dec 3, 2010, 2:57pm, spongebob wrote: Had Ms M been correctly advised to register when her business closed, none of this would have occurred. An interesting further point is raised by this story. As the author states, if Ms M had obtained specialist immigration advice much earlier, then all of the problems (and the associated costs to the court service, etc...) would have been avoided. It is already very difficult (as Ms M discovered) to find specialist immigration advice, but the government is proposing to remove all immigration advice such as this out of scope of legal aid and thus it will be impossible for those such as Ms M to access the advice they require to avoid falling into difficulties such as this. Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged crc Global Moderator member is offline Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 2 Re: Almost street homeless with a 2 year old « Reply #2 on Dec 8, 2010, 11:03am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh yes, I should have added that the fee payable to the solicitor for providing the specialist immigration advice which could have avoided all the trauma, problems and associated costs would have been £260 + vat (+ interpreters costs of say £70). Good value?? I think so. Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=34#ixzz1Nggwufag
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:10:32 GMT 1
Debt & Benefit advice working together « Thread Started on Dec 3, 2010, 10:16am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a case study from a legal aid funded advice agency in Northumberland. Here, two cases were opened for the clients, one a Debt case and the other, a specialist Welfare Benefits matter. What is interesting about this case is that the reform proposals say that legal aid will be kept for cases involving repossession or eviction of the client from their home, however any work in respect of welfare benefits would be removed entirely from scope of funding. Whilst this might mean the house was saved the first time around, it certainly means that the next time around it is very likely it would not be were the underlying issues around entitlement and any subsequent appeals not addressed. Read on... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr and Mrs N live in a small rural town in Northumberland. Mrs N approached her local CAB for help because a loan company had threatened to repossess their family home of over 20 years because of £470.00 worth of arrears She was at her wits end as the loan company refused to accept a delay in payments, which she asked for because her husband had been signed off work after an apparent breakdown The original loan was for £4500, over 5 years. They had been paying it for two years, and it was secured against their house, which was also mortgaged with a different lender. Mr and Mrs N only had 3 years left on the original mortgage and had timed the smaller loan – taken to buy a 2nd hand car so that Mr N could continue to travel to his work – to end at roughly the same time as the mortgage. Mr N never recovered from his “breakdown”, which turned out to be the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. When Mrs N first went to her CAB, Mr N needed increasing amounts of daily care, and Mrs N was hoping not to have to give up her own part-time job, which increasingly was providing her some small respite from caring for her husband and keeping her in touch with friends outside her home. Mr N had, throughout their long marriage, handled most of their finances, although Mrs N had always managed the day-to-day running of the family’s budget. Mr N was becoming confused, losing his short term memory at an alarming rate, and was frequently aggressive to Mrs N, who obviously found this hard to come to terms with. She and her husband loved each other, and watching her husband deteriorate like this, and having to watch over him to make sure he didn’t harm himself or others, was taking up all her time and emotional energy, and she did not know what else to do about the loan which she just couldn’t afford, and keep up with the mortgage as well. She and her husband had never before even considered they might need to claim benefits, and Mrs N, in spite of eventually having a care manager from Social Services appointed to help look after her husband’s needs, did not know if any benefits were available to her or her husband. Mrs N did not know where her husband had put the paperwork for the loan. She had assumed it would be with the mortgage papers, but it wasn’t. Mr and Mrs N were eligible for Legal Aid, and, after first meeting with a generalist adviser, who identified both potential benefits issues and the obvious debt issue, she met with two different specialist advisers who worked in tandem on the different legal issues. A clear entitlement to disability benefits was identified for Mr N, although as he was already over 60 years old, he was entitled to Attendance Allowance rather than Disability Living Allowance. The Care Manager had suggested that Mrs N make a claim for for Disability Living Allowance (DLA). The adviser explained that Mrs N herself was not entitled to this benefit, and Mr N would need to appoint Mrs N as his appointee to enable her to deal with his own claim for Attendance Allowance. For Mrs N the claim process was confusing and difficult, especially given her distressed circumstances. She was assisted with the technical aspects of the claim, and also had advice about Carers Allowance which she might be entitled to if she had to give up her job (or if her earnings and work hours were low enough). In the meantime, a specialist debt adviser suggested that if her loan agreement was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, it might be possible to apply to the Court for a Time Order. This would allow the Court to alter the terms of the agreement so she could afford to repay it and avoid the house being repossessed by the lender. As she did not have the original paperwork immediately available, it was suggested that she give her consent for the adviser to act on her behalf, and an approach was made to exercise her right under the Consumer Credit Act to obtain a copy of the loan agreement on payment of the Statutory Fee of £1.00. A copy of the loan agreement was provided by the lender, who also agreed to put recovery action on hold for a short time. The loan agreement did clarify that it was an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, and it was dated before certain amendments were made to the Consumer Credit Act in 2007. But more than this, it also revealed what was ostensibly a small error in the way the agreement was made up, which in the opinion of her legal adviser made the whole agreement totally unenforceable, because an administration charge of less than £50 had been added to the agreement as a part of the amount of credit. Mrs N did not think such a small error could cause the loan to be unenforceable. She couldn’t believe that for the sake of a £50 charge being entered in the wrong place in the agreement she might get the Court to agree to declare that the loan, and the security it had over the house, was not to be enforced and that she would no longer be required to repay the loan, and the threat of possession action would be taken away. The adviser initially wrote to the lender to point out his opinion, and asked the company to agree to voluntarily write off the loan balance and remove the charge on the property from the land registry. Initially the company refused to agree to any such voluntary action, and went so far as to issue a possession claim for the loan. Following further legal arguments about the loan agreement, about Multiple Agreements and Unenforceable agreements, the lender finally agreed to sign up to a Consent Order writing off the balance of the loan, and removing the security from the land registry. A very short meeting was required at the local County Court for a District Judge to give effect to the Consent Order, but the matter did not have to go to a full trial, saving the Court, the adviser, and perhaps most importantly, Mrs N, the time and costs which would have undoubtedly been incurred. There were two Legal Aid cases undertaken – at a cost of around £450 to the taxpayer (it was “as high” as this because the benefits legal adviser needed to obtain a medical report from Mr N’s doctor to confirm his Alzheimer’s Disease and comment on his condition). An expensive trial was avoided, and only a small amount of the Court’s time was taken up – the cost of which was paid for by the lender. Mr and Mrs N retained their home, avoiding the costs that would undoubtedly have fallen to the local authority (ultimately paid for by the tax-payer again) of having to rehouse Mr and Mrs N. And such action would also have caused Mrs N to find it harder to cope, possibly to the point where she would have had to be treated herself for stress and depression. Following the advice on the disability benefits and the assistance with the claims procedure, Mr and Mrs N were also able to afford to maintain payments against the main mortgage. If this hadn’t been resolved then even the sterling work on the secured loan may have been in vain given the main mortgage lender would themselves have probably taken their own legal proceedings when payments went into arrears. The costs to the taxpayer if Mr and Mrs N had not received expert legal advice paid for by legal aid are incalculable. They would undoubtedly have been far greater than £450.00, but worse than that, Mr and Mrs N would have ended up losing their home unjustly – they would have been denied access to justice – and that surely would have been the greatest cost of all. « Last Edit: Dec 6, 2010, 10:59am by Patrick » Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please show some support for MyLegal by registering. It's free and takes about 20 seconds Click here to email the MyLegal Team nickd MyLegal Team member is online Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 323 Re: Debt & Benefit advice working together « Reply #1 on Dec 7, 2010, 11:28pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Aid was on a path towards the provision of a holistic range of services whereby a client would be able to access a range of social welfare law issues at one point of access. The recently proposed Legal aid reforms threaten to alter the good course upon which we were headed, ultimately these reforms could lead to the extinction of Legal Aid for worthy clients as highlighted above. The above post highlights how specialists in their field work together to get the advice the client needs all in one place. This is advice given by quality marked professionals and cannot be replaced by a generalised telephone service operated by less experienced advisers. This is a classic case of Legal Aid delivering what the client needs and wants; face to face advice. Commercial institutions have an absolute duty to get the small print right in their loan agreements and the existence of a Time Order is the kind of remedy which would only have been picked up by specialist advisers, this requires Legal Aid funding to avoid the kind of calamity which was thankfully averted by this excellent agency in Northumbria. There must be many more examples of how providers pool their specialist knowledge, these are the kind of stories which we need to hear. So all you providers out there who have something to say for all the hard work we put in on behalf of your clients, let's here your story and let's hear it on Mylegal! Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=32#ixzz1NghKDXWf
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:11:46 GMT 1
Severe mental health problems & 'fit for work' « Thread Started on Dec 7, 2010, 11:24am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a case study from a Welfare Benefits specialist at Bolton CAB. The early intervention of the legal adviser correctly identified the wrongful termination of a person's disability benefit. The client, Mrs B, had been deemed fit for work despite clearly suffering a severe psychiatric illness, which had been even been clinically diagnosed. The intervention of the legal adviser, funded under legal aid, resolved the issue for Mrs B, so avoiding costly and lengthy tribunal proceedings. The agency was paid a fixed fee of £167 for the work. Under the current proposals, Mrs B would not receive any legal help. The question is this, what would happen then and, how much would the cost be to the state...? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs B is a 46 year old lady with severe mental health problems. She approached us due to her Employment Support Allowance (ESA) stopping after she failed a Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The Department of Work and Pension (DWP) used the provisions of Regulation 19 of the Employment Support Allowance regulations 2008 as its justification for doing this. Mrs B was (and is) under the care of a psychiatrist, and it was obvious from observations and detailed discussions about the criteria for the benefit that she was not fit for work and ought to have passed the assessment. We obtained a report, using the Legal Aid scheme, from Mrs B’s psychiatrist detailing her problems and their affects on her every day life and as a result of the information provided to the department of work and pensions to support the case we were able to use this to get a reconsideration of the original decision in the client’s favour and this saved Mrs B the trouble of attending an appeal and also the cost of the appeals process. « Last Edit: Dec 7, 2010, 9:28pm by Patrick » Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please show some support for MyLegal by registering. It's free and takes about 20 seconds Click here to email the MyLegal Team sharnden MyLegal Team member is offline Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 10 Re: Severe mental health problems & 'fit for work' « Reply #1 on Dec 7, 2010, 12:53pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are a charity who help people with mental health problems. We regularly see client's who have severe and enduring mental illness, have attendedn ESA medicals, and scored 0 points. We have successfully appealed all of the cases using the legal help scheme. The reason they score 0 points is two fold. 1. The ESA50 form gives no assistance to a person who has poor insight into their condition. They complete the form themselves and indicate they have no problems. 2. The Atos medical assesors appear to have no knowledge of Regulation 35 of the ESA regulations 2008, nor do the ESA DM's or benefit processors. reg 35 states as follows; Certain claimants to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity 35—(1) A claimant is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if— (a) the claimant is terminally ill; (b) the claimant is— (i) receiving treatment by way of intravenous, intraperitoneal or intrathecal chemotherapy; or (ii) recovering from that treatment and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant should be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity; or (c) in the case of a woman, she is pregnant and there is a serious risk of damage to her health or to the health of her unborn child if she does not refrain from work-related activity. (2) A claimant who does not have limited capability for work-related activity as determined in accordance with regulation 34(1) is to be treated as having limited capability for work-related activity if— (a) the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement; and (b) by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity. It is obvious to us that a person with a severe mental condition satisfies this regulation, that is why it has been legislated for. Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please show some support fory MyLegal by registering. It's free and takes about 20 seconds Click here to email the MyLegal Team nickd MyLegal Team member is online Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 324 Re: Severe mental health problems & 'fit for work' « Reply #2 on Dec 7, 2010, 10:40pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As welfare benefits specialists (funded by LSC) covering much of the South Devon area we are experiencing a greatly increased workload in appeal work, many of our clients tell us how they would never manage to obtain justice in Social Security appeal tribunals without our assistance. We are currently campaigning our clients to participate in MyLegal by telling us their own stories. Where our clients provide their express consent to publicise their stories we will post these on Mylegal so the information can be used to challenge proposals to remove Legal Aid in these essential areas of social welfare law. The current economic climate is a time when people are increasingly in need of our services. This is no time to propose cuts in our funding which will seriously disadvantage those who turn to us as their voice in overturning unjust decisions. Follow Bolton's CAB's good example by providing as many stories as you can , it's real life stories which can be used to highlight the essential work we do, these stories are out there and need to be told, so let's hear them! Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=39#ixzz1Nghb1jK4
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:12:48 GMT 1
This family were nearly on the streets « Thread Started on Dec 7, 2010, 2:22pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs K and her 4 children have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK and she came to us (Bolton CAB) initially with benefit issues as her Employment Support Allowance (ESA) had been refused. The Department of Work and Pension used the provisions of Regulation 19 of the Employment Support Allowance regulations 2008 to terminate her claim. She was also approx 8 months pregnant. Mr K came to the UK to live with his family and he did not have his decision on his asylum claim, so he personally had no recourse to public funds. We were able to advise Mrs K on appealing the ESA and this meant that her benefit would go back into payment for the duration of the appeal. The only income the family had for the children was Child Benefit as they had not had a decision from Child Tax Credits with regards to their entitlement. There were complex issues with the Tax Credit claim resulting in the case going to the appeals section, and we know from experience that this can take several months to resolve and despite liaising persistently with the Tax Credit Office we were unable to reach a positive outcome prior to appeal. As a result Mr and Mrs K had only Child Benefit income and single person ESA to live on for the foreseeable future for themselves and their 4 children, thus living way below what is perceived as the poverty line. We were able to advise them on their potential entitlement under S.17 of the 1989 Childrens Act and Social Services legislation generally. Taking this into consideration, the family were signposted to social services via the community care team for emergency assistance as without this the family would go hungry, be unable to pay bills etc and potentially have ended up homeless. There was also a real risk of the children being taken into care had these actions not been taken. In addition, the family had large mounting household bills as they were unable to meet the costs due their minimal income and so were also given assistance from the legal aid funded Debt specialist to hold off the agencies pursuing payments until their full entitlement to benefits were in payment and backdated. The Debt specialist was able to advise and negotiate with creditors. It appears some creditors had attempted to ignore the provisions of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act in their dealing with the client. Without the combination of assistance they received Mr and Mrs K and their family would not have managed to keep their energy supplies at the property, keep their property at all and feed and clothe their children. Without the legally aided help, it would have been one more family on the streets or, two more adults one of whom was pregnant, and four more kids in care Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=41#ixzz1Nghrfamg
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:13:51 GMT 1
Challenged a local authority decision « Thread Started on Dec 6, 2010, 3:37pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Miss D is a 24 year old lady with 1 child aged 3. When she moved into rented accommodation she claimed Housing Benefit to cover her housing costs as she was in receipt of Income Support. However, Miss D was refused Housing Benefit as she was deemed to have a "non commercial tenancy" under regulation 9(4) of the Housing Benefits: the landlord was her father. Without the rent he was unable to make mortgage payments on the property. The mortgage company started court proceedings against her father. He therefore had to start action to evict her, causing considerable family conflict. We were able to advise on Housing Benefit Regulations relating to non commercial tenancies and after looking at the facts of her case we concluded her tenancy was commercial and as a result of submitting an appeal the decision was reconsidered and Miss Dann received Housing Benefit within a month period. The representations that we made were based on the case of R(Mackay) V Barking and Dagenham HBRB [2001] EWCA 234 (HC). The Housing Benefit department were unaware of this particular case but were persuaded by the arguments and representations we made and awarded the appropriate amount of housing benefit. Accordingly as the matter was resolved we were able to withdraw the appeal. Miss D was then able to pay her rent and her father was able to pay the mortgage. As a result the following things were prevented and associated costs avoided: a full appeal process to an appeal tribunal on the housing benefit issue a full court process instigated by the mortgage company for repossession and eviction of Miss D's father a homelessness application for re-housing from Ms D and thus the likely allocation of a council house, and a full scale family argument that could have changed the relationships in the family for many years to come. The cost to the public purse for this case was a fixed fee of £167 + VAT. Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=38#ixzz1Ngi8n79p
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:14:57 GMT 1
Employment problems after baby's birth « Thread Started on Dec 2, 2010, 9:49pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a case study from a legal aid funded employment law specialist at Bolton CAB. This case was funded by legal aid, but would not be funded under new plans to remove all funding for anything at all to do with employment problems. This is a real story of a real person assisted by legal aid funding earlier this year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Miss. V Miss V is a 29-year old young mother who recently gave birth to a baby boy. She was due to return to work from maternity leave. Her usual hours were 40hpw (5 full days per week), but she wished to return on 25hpw (3 full days per week). Despite making informal enquiries, employer was totally resistant to this. If the changes could not be agreed, client was concerned (especially as a single parent) that she would be unable to provide proper care for her child, and would be forced either to shell out hundreds of pounds on childcare or resign from her job & live off what she described as "handouts from the state". The employment specialist at Bolton CAB advised Miss V in accordance with the Flexible Working Regulations, explained to her the various processes to be followed, and drafted a formal flexible working application on her behalf. Miss V attended various meetings after this which the adviser helped her to prepare and work through. As a result, Miss V managed to secure a new position working 24 hpw. She has settled well into her new role & is enjoying the new hours. We also managed to negotiate a switch to Saturday shifts once per month, which will allow the father of her child to spend time with the newborn as well. « Last Edit: Dec 6, 2010, 10:57am by Patrick » Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=31#ixzz1NgiPtuOi
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:17:14 GMT 1
Mr. F was trying to make his employer see sense « Thread Started on Dec 2, 2010, 9:35pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a case study from a legal aid funded employment law specialist at Bolton CAB. This case was funded by legal aid, but would not be funded under new plans to remove all funding for anything at all to do with employment problems. This is a real story of a real person assisted by legal aid funding earlier this year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. F Mr. F is a 41-year old man who was badly injured in a motorcycle accident in 2005. Since then, he's been reliant on his mother & social worker to organise his affairs & provide ongoing day-to-day support His job at work involved a lot of heavy manual handling which he was left unable to perform due to his injuries. He asked that he be moved to lighter duties, but his employer refused. Mr. F ended up going off on long-term sick & was admitted to hospital for coronary care. His employer pressured him into resigning, claiming (wrongly) that he had been overpaid wages, before eventually dismissing him anyway. As a result of losing out on a secure job that he had enjoyed & was planning to return to, client began to suffer from depression & also ran up a number of debts. A specialist employment adviser told the client that he could submit a grievance/appeal letter to the employer, due to the complete lack of procedures/notice/reasons for dismissal. Bolton CAB eventually assisted him with an Employment Tribunal claim, which included unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of Working Time Regulations, notice pay & disability discrimination. The bureau also helped Mr. F to obtain medical evidence from his GP plus x-rays of his original injuries. This was a case funded by legal aid, with Bolton CAB being paid a fixed fee of £230 to deal with it. With the adviser's assistance, Mr. F managed to secure an out-of-court settlement of £5250. The award helped towards clearing client’s debts, & he has now started to respond more positively to treatment for his depression. « Last Edit: Dec 2, 2010, 9:50pm by Patrick » Report to Mod - Link to Post - Back to Top Logged Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=29#ixzz1NgizzlfN
|
|
|
Post by nickd on May 28, 2011 23:18:59 GMT 1
Mrs G from Bolton who lost her disability benefit « Thread Started on Dec 2, 2010, 3:21pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a case study from a welfare benefits specialist at Bolton CAB. This case was funded by legal aid, but would not be funded under new plans to remove all funding for anything at all to do with welfare benefits problems. This is a real story of a real person assisted by legal aid funding earlier this year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs G: Mrs G is a 59 year old woman. She had her right leg partially amputated in an operation to save her life and relies entirely on her husband to care and to look after her on a daily basis. Mrs G's husband had worked all his life and only gave it up to look after his wife after the operation Mrs G was initially receiving the higher rates of both the care and mobility components of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), but the care component was reduced to the lower rate when DWP reviewed her claim in April this year. As a consequence, her husband also lost his right to carers benefits so the drop in household income was significant Mrs G felt this decision was unfair due to the amount of care she needed on a daily basis and the amount of help her husband, who was himself ageing and not very well, had to provide She asked for the decision to be reconsidered but it was not changed With the reduced household income, they were unable to afford many of the basics. For example, they had reduce the amount of time they put the heating on for and cut out the occasional taxi trips to see their grandchildren As a result, Mrs G began to feel even more unwell and had to visit her GP where she began to be treated for depression When the legal aid funded adviser met with Mrs G, he was able to advise her in relation to S.73 of the Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 for the various rates of the care component of DLA and apply these to her circumstances The adviser lodged an appeal for Mrs G under the provisions of the Decision Making and Appeals Act 1998, and used the Legal Aid Scheme to obtain medical evidence from her GP and other experts as to their opinions regarding Mrs G's capability to care for herself. These were then submitted to the DWP and a further request for reconsideration under the 1998 Act was made In conjunction with the appeal on the medical evidence, the adviser made further representations direct to the DWP detailing how Mrs G's circumstances met the relevant legislation and why they should restore her previous award Mrs G's award was eventually reconsidered and her award of higher rate for both components of DLA was restored without the client having to go for an appeal, which the adviser was then able to withdraw This early intervention saved substantial costs for both the DWP and the Tribunals Service. A conservative estimate would put the costs saved at around £1000, although the actual costs probably significantly higher. It also reduced the likely costs to the NHS of Mrs G being treated for depression. The cost of the help to the legal aid fund was £221 in total Mr G was able to reclaim his carers benefits as well. At the moment, Mr and Mrs G can now put the heating on whenever they are cold and the GP is no longer treating Mrs G for depression. They are also now able to occasionally pay £4 for a taxi ride to visit their grandchildren, who live 3 miles away Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=advice&action=display&thread=28#ixzz1NgjI8reM
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jun 10, 2011 23:42:48 GMT 1
We're still on the look out for some case studies, they'll become more important in the months ahead, especially as the reforms move through the Lord's, where they're more likely to be used in debate than the rowdy House of Commons. We particularly need ones which highight cost savings to the public purse and the legal nature of the work we do.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jun 26, 2011 21:32:25 GMT 1
With these reforms moving at the speed of light, the Justice Bill will no doubt be moving to the House of Lords where it should get a better airing than it has so far. What's really needed is some good solid case studies to be used in some of the forthcoming debates.
In particular, we could do with ones which illustrate cash savings to the state.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jul 3, 2011 23:55:19 GMT 1
!
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jul 6, 2011 22:44:35 GMT 1
Wife and children of convicted murderer saved from eviction at the 11th hour.
Today we were called upon, at very short notice, to help a client make an application to set aside a warrant for the eviction from her home; she resides there with her two dependant children.
It was a ten minute brief over at the local county court before we went in before the District Judge. It was actually the claimant's solicitor who pointed the client in our direction and we responded to the request to help, to the claimant's representative's absolute credit; - he could see this unrepresented woman needed help. This was a desperate situation as the client was due to be evicted at 1.00 pm. It meant dropping everything to do what we could.
Upon taking some very quick instructions it was clear the client had been having a very difficult time. Last year her husband had been convicted of the murder of two pensioner's who he'd conned out of money, when he knew he was near to being caught out, he knifed them both to death, it was a brutal double murder of two totally innocent people in their 70's who'd been taken in by the cruel and callous conman. He was sentenced to a life tariff with a recommendation that he serves at least 30 years. he'd pleaded not guilty, but the jury wasn't taken in by his far from compelling defence.
Our client, the murderer's wife was also a victim. Her husband had taken out a mortgage on the property which she once thought was 'their home'. In doing so, he'd forged her signature. There were two mortgage charges on the property and my client only felt she was liable for the one she'd signed.
Our client had tried to plead a defence on the grounds that she couldn't be liable for something she'd not signed. In making her application she received something back from the Court to say 'Application Dismissed'. In her understandable confusion in having to come to terms with what her husband had done, she'd mistakenly taken 'dismissed' to mean that the case against her had been dropped - it was the opposite which was true.
People don't think straight when they have to deal with stuff like this, imagine the effect something like this would have upon you.
It therefore came as a shock when the bailiffs came to see her to make sure she was aware of today's eviction. It's all very well people saying she could and should have got help earlier, but the reality was she was still shell shocked in coming to terms with what a monster she'd married; - she only became aware of the forgery when the Police had turned up. It became clear that the motive in her husband's murderous crimes was to con the pensioner's out of their hard earned cash to pay off the spiraling debt he'd built up by borrowing against the house.
Her husband was fully legally aided by the state in defending what transpired to be the un-defendable.
However, she fought an uphill battle, no legal aid or police action to prove the forgery, nor did anyone advise her on how to get some mortgage interest help as part of her benefit claim. A problem which arose was over accepting liability for a mortgage she's not agreed to; - it led to her being declined any mortgage help on either of the two charges. This contributed to mortgage arrears; - her husband not being willing or able to help out.
We got her an extra 14 days, she was immensely grateful. I didn't think it was a lot but she felt relieved at not being thrown out of her home today. It was touch and go as to whether she'd get a postponed eviction. I was relieved to see the District Judge pick up the Court phone to call the bailiffs off.
We'll do what we can to resurrect things but I was pleased to be able to buy her some time and to encourage her to see the local council and get some help over her housing plight.
This is the way we, as dedicated advisors, react to what are real life emergencies; - some of the cost we won't even be able to claim from the Legal Aid fund. We helped this lady and her children out through a sense of humanity.
I can't help but feel that on this particular occasion it was a case which highlighted how much help the offender gets and how little those who are left to pick up the pieces receive.
But that as they say is justice.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jul 14, 2011 22:27:04 GMT 1
Today I saw a young man and his wife and listened to one of the most appalling accounts of the totally irresponsible decisions being made by the DWP on the basis of what can only be described as an inept medical assessment by the private health care contractor ATOS.
The client was on the waiting list for major surgery when he was seen by the ATOS health care professional. His operations had been rescheduled several times by the NHS. IT is obvious that anyone awaiting major surgery is going to have some kind of limitation in their ability to work; - but not according to the DWP / ATOS health care professional!
My client's appeal has now been listed and he has now undergone surgery since I last saw him.
My jaw nearly dropped when I heard his story.
He required major reconstructive abdominal surgery, in short his stomach organs has lifted up within in his chest cavity and needed relocating to where they should normally be situated. He has a history of stomach related surgery. In addition to this he also needed a hernia operation which could not be carried out until after the major reconstructive surgery had been carried out.
The man could not undertake many tasks such as pushing a shopping trolley or using the vacuum cleaner due abdominal pain. He was also be recurrently sick due to the incorrect positioning of his digestive track.
An ATOS state registered nurse conducted an examination which lasted a little over 20 minutes, she could not find the client's condition on her 'computer' and therefore only inputted 'hiatus hernia' and 'abdominal problem'. It was a gross understatement of the client's condition.
The client was not very good at completing the self assessment ESA forms or telling the doctor what was wrong, he thought his own doctor would be asked - no attempt was made to contact the client's doctor.
The client told me that after we had lodged the appeal he went to hospital and underwent a six hour operation to correct his abdominal organs, the surgery didn't go well and didn't achieve what the surgeons had hoped, he was sent to a high dependency unity to recover. A large incision was made and two drains put in. An infection arose post surgery, he was in hospital for what he thought would be 5 days.
On the day he was due to be released, he collapsed as he developed life threatening complications due to a stomach bleed, he had to be operated on immediately and was rushed off for emergency surgery. His wife was seriously worried what the outcome would be as he went through 8 hours of further surgery. Thankfully he has recovered.
His admission involved a full month in hospital, after which he had corrective gallstone treatment and his relatively routine hernia was then repaired requiring a further admission over 3 days.
There's no doubt that this was major and very serious surgery which wasn't being carried out for no reason, his doctor was adamant that this normally hard working man should undertake no work.
The health care professional concluded he's only suffered from a hernia and completely failed to grasp the real problem. This was incompetence in the client's view and he has been urged to complain.
This could potentially have set up a deep mistrust between the client's own specialist team and their patient; - he may have thought they'd got it wrong.
The DWP have completely failed to acknowledge all that has been mentioned in his letter or appeal, they just say 'We agree with the health care professional'.
This case will go to appeal, it will suceed.
This whole exercise has been a total farce and raises serious concerns over the depth of knowledge possessed by target driven health care professionals.
We will be advising our client to make a complaint of medical negligence in this case.
The costs of these mistakes will one day far outweigh the cost saving of the DWP trying to deny people any form of support on ESA by conducting these medicals as their ticket to get people on to cheaper Jobseeker's Allowance.
This is an outrage.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Aug 7, 2011 21:02:07 GMT 1
A classic ESA assessment injusticeI saw a client yesterday, he was brought to our office by his MHP (Mental Health practitioner, the new name for a Comunity Psychiatric Nurse). He suffers with paranoid schizophrenia, which was diagnosed many years ago. He was asked to attend a medical examination at the beginning of March this year. The appointment at the medical centre was made on a Sunday. When he got there it was shut, no lights on and no sign of life, a support worker from his mental health team was with this and can confirm that this was the case. Surprise surprise, a week later his benefits were stopped. The client has been living off his DLA payments. His MHP only noticed when he checked his bank account this week. Yesterday, we phoned the DWP and we were told his benefit was stopped because he failed to attend a medical examination. (we have faxed a "late" appeal, with relevant evidence from his consultant psychiatrist) This client should be exempt from the WCA, he has a severe and enduring mental illness, he is on clozaril medication, which is only prescribed to people who are intolerant to all other types of antipsychotic medication. It is highly toxic and requires regular blood tests. There is a serious risk to his mental health if he were found not to have limited capability for work related activity. (Reg 35(2)(b) ESA regs 2008) 'It is an absolute disgrace that this man should be put through this' says Sharnden. A view expressed by many advisors who see these clients on the frontline. « Last Edit: Jul 28, 2011, 9:48am by nickd » Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=405&page=1#ixzz1UTGG1GfF
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Aug 8, 2011 21:20:34 GMT 1
Atos case study: Larry Newman "Larry Newman was assessed by an Atos staff member and awarded zero points. To qualify for sickness benefit he needed. He died from lung problems soon after" Amelia Gentleman guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 July 2011 Larry Newman attended a work capability assessment in March 2010, when a degenerative lung condition made it impossible for him to go on working in the wood veneer showroom where he had spent much of his career. His weight had dropped from 10 to seven stone, and he had trouble breathing and walking. The Atos staff member who carried out the medical test awarded him zero points. To qualify for employment and support allowance, the new sickness benefit, he needed to score 15 points, and in July he received a letter from jobcentre officials stating that he was not eligible for the benefit (worth around £95 a week) and would be fit to return to work within three months. He was devastated by the decision, and dismayed to note a number of inaccuracies in the report that accompanied the letter. He decided to appeal against the decision, but before three months was up he died from his lung problems. His widow, Sylvia Newman, recalls that one of the last things he said to her, as doctors put him on a ventilator, was: "It's a good job I'm fit for work." He was trying to make her laugh, she says, but it was also a reflection of how upset he had been by the conclusion of the medical test. "He was so hurt by it. It made him so upset that they thought he was lying, and he wasn't," she says. "I think it added to him just giving up." Mrs Newman has lodged an official complaint, with the help of Citizens Advice staff, highlighting 12 inconsistencies in the report by the Atos assesser. It said her husband had been unaccompanied. "I was with him, although in his medical report they claimed that I was in the waiting room," she says. The report says that Mr Newman's pulse was fine, that he had no scars on his chest and that he managed to climb on to the examination bed without any problem. Mrs Newman says that her husband did not get on to the examination bed, that his pulse was not taken, and that the assesser did not look at his chest, otherwise he would have seen scars. "He never touched Larry, he never took his pulse.There were endless inaccuracies," she added, describing the report as "make-believe". They were both dismayed by the assesser's casual attitude. "At one stage, he took a phone call. We were trying not to listen, but it seemed to be a personal call," she says. "It went on for a few minutes. It wasn't very professional." Although they had given written permission for Atos to seek written medical reports from Mr Newman's hospital consultant, who had diagnosed extrinsic allergic alveolitis, the assesser said that he didn't have a copy of his records or the questionnaire that he had filled in when he applied for the benefit. "They could have just got a report from the hospital to see how sick he was. It seemed a pointless exercise," Mrs Newman says, profoundly distressed as she recounts what happened. She is angry at the treatment she and her husband received from Atos staff. "They are charging the government a lot of money for these assessments, and I know that other very sick people have been treated as Larry was. I promised him I would pursue it. It wasn't a fortune, and we were struggling to survive. It wasn't anything he wasn't entitled to." An Atos official said: "We are sorry to hear that Mr Newman has died. We cannot comment on individual cases. We do expect the highest standards from our staff. All complaints are taken very seriously and thoroughly investigated." It's injustices like this which no one should need to contest, they take away the spirit of a humane and civil society. They also act as a chilling reminder to how severe the conditions of someone claiming ESA can be. www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/24/atos-case-study-larry-newman Read more: mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=405&page=2#ixzz1UTFS75IA
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Aug 22, 2011 11:22:15 GMT 1
Letter on "This is Exeter" site from a lady helped by Gloucester Law Centre " Law Centre cuts immoral "Sunday, August 21, 2011 The Citizen I AM writing to support your comments about the legal aid cuts and to tell you about my experience with using the Gloucester Law Centre. I am a woman in my 50s and live alone. I am unable to work because of disability and consulted the Law Centre about my private landlord after trying in vain for several years to get him to carry out repairs at my home. My ground floor flat was flooded in the 10/07 floods and I had raw sewage running through the property. After the floods subsided, I was left with damaged and dirty floors and walls and although I believe the landlord claimed for the damage on his insurance, he would not carry out any repairs and I had to manage as best I could to clear up. There were also numerous other faults in the property including a ceiling which was seriously cracked and bowed and looked like it might collapse at any moment. Rotten doors and windows which leaked when it rained, a broken manhole cover allowing rats to get into the garden and electrical fittings which did not meet current regulations. After two years of living in these conditions and trying to get the landlord to take action, I went to the Law Centre. My solicitor at the Law Centre immediately wrote to my landlord threatening legal action if he did not meet his legal responsibilities to me and also called in the Environmental Health Department who served a repairs notice to him. His response was to ignore both my solicitor and the repairs notice and to serve notice to leave the property on me. After we commenced legal action against him, I was awarded compensation through the courts and I was able to equip and furnish a housing association property which was subsequently allocated to me. I would never have been able to take this action on my own without the assistance of Gloucester Law Centre funded by legal aid. My solicitor was exceptionally competent and nothing was too much for her. Without the Law Centre's help I would probably still be there now living in squalor and suffering more illness and depression. I understand that disrepair problems such as mine would probably not be funded if the cuts go through, which I believe is disgraceful. Ordinary people such as myself will be unable to enforce their rights against rogue landlords like mine who have significant resources and can afford to pay for solicitors. These cuts are immoral and must not be allowed to go ahead. Ms S. Aue Gloucester" www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Law-Centre-cuts-immoral/story-13175180-detail/story.html
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 9, 2011 0:32:31 GMT 1
Need more case studies for Lord's sessions
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Sept 10, 2011 10:28:16 GMT 1
Keep getting those stories in local papers. Coventry Telegraph has 2 page article on legal aid cuts a mother talks about her child helped by legal aid. " Don't cut legal aid, says Coventry mum in £1.8m payout by Duncan GibbonsSep 9 2011 A MUM who fought for compensation after her baby suffered brain injuries in hospital is urging the government to shelve plans to slash legal aid. Ayesha Kishver, 14, of Styvechale, Coventry, was diagnosed with mild brain problems after she was born 15 weeks early in 1997. But the condition deteriorated after medics at Birmingham City Hospital failed to spot she had developed septicaemia and high blood acid levels. Growing up she could not dress herself or play with friends unsupervised, and still needs help with certain day-to-day tasks. In January the High Court awarded Ayesha a lump sum of £1.8 million plus £90,000 a year for life after her mum Shahana, 55, was granted legal aid to sue Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust. Mrs Kishver has now called on justice secretary Ken Clarke to abandon his plans to slash £350 million from the legal aid budget. “This has been a very difficult time for my family who had to fight to ensure our little girl received access to the care and equipment she needs now, and for the rest of her life, as a result of someone else’s negligence,” she said. “To think that, under the government’s new proposals, we might not have been able to get the legal support we relied on so heavily to win our battle for justice is unthinkable. ........." Rest on second page on their site-link below Read More www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/09/09/don-t-cut-legal-aid-says-coventry-mum-in-1-8m-payout-92746-29391683/#ixzz1XXWeykDTwww.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2011/09/09/don-t-cut-legal-aid-says-coventry-mum-in-1-8m-payout-92746-29391683/
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Sept 12, 2011 9:57:38 GMT 1
Yorkshire Post covers legal aid cuts-Another local paper covers legal aid cuts-keep those articles coming. "Legal aid campaign backed by parents of brain-damaged girl Published on Monday 12 September 2011 06:00 THE parents of a girl, who suffered brain damage during her delivery, have joined a campaign to try to stop the Government cutting legal aid funding, particularly for vulnerable victims. Ruby Curtis, now aged six, suffers from athetoid cerebral palsy and needs 24 hour care. Her condition, which affects all four limbs and means she has involuntary movements in her arms and legs, was caused when her mother’s uterus ruptured during her birth at St James’s Hospital, Leeds, in August 2005. Her family, supported by medical law specialists Irwin Mitchell, are now taking legal action over the medical failures to recover funds to help pay for her future care and rehabilitation. Ruby’s mother Lisa claims without that vital funding they would not have been able to pursue that claim to help Ruby gain the funds she needs for her long term care. “Ruby is an amazing little girl, and we are so proud of her. It’s heartbreaking to see her unable to do so many of the things the majority of us take for granted,” she said. “We want her to experience as much as she can in life and we help her as best we can. It’s just tragic to think that all this came as a result of mistakes made in her delivery. These mistakes were avoidable.” Her daughter vocalises but has no clear speech and uses a switch with her knee to operate her communication aid, all of which are permanent effects of her birth trauma. She added: “Ruby’s condition affects every aspect of her life, and she needs assistance on a constant basis. Any cuts to legal aid will affect those who are most in need of help from accessing the law and will deprive the most vulnerable. I’d urge the Government to think again about plans to cut this vital funding.” . ........................" Rest at link below www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/legal_aid_campaign_backed_by_parents_of_brain_damaged_girl_1_3762546
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Sept 16, 2011 14:27:10 GMT 1
Excellent blog post from a criminal solicitor on why the telephone gateway would be a disaster "Homepage crimsolicitorSearch “Just another WordPress.com site” ‹ If you would like legal advice please press #1 now…(and make sure you have your credit card details to hand) September 15, 2011 Just one reason why telephone advice is not good enough… As a follow up to my last blog and in response to why just telephone advice can’t be given and in particular to the question well if he did it just admit it. Let me introduce you to Brian… Brian is 6’4″ tall, weighs 22 stone, shaves his head and has tattoos covering about two-thirds of his body. Brian suffers from a number of physical difficulties including epilepsy and has been categorised as having a borderline personality disorder and takes a cocktail of medication each day. He speaks slowly and has a broad West Country accent. First impressions on meeting Brian are rarely positive. Physically he is intimidating and his speech and mannerisms often give the impression that he is slow to comprehend things. As a result the contact he has had with authority figures whether that be police, doctors, social services or courts rarely go smoothly. People treat him as being stupid, and he becomes frustrated, voices are raised and one thing leads to another, usually badly for Brian. Brian is certainly not stupid, just unable to communicate very well. Three years ago Brian met Sheila. Sheila was the love of his life, his first girlfriend. For ten months Brian spent all his time with and all his money on Sheila; flowers, chocolates, fancy meals, clothes, jewellery and a myriad of other gifts. All was well with his life. At the end of ten months Sheila left Brian and there was no reason given, no real explanation, she just stopped answering his calls, texts were not responded to and her Mum told him she was never in. Brian became depressed, his medication was upped and over time he found a level to build from. Then two months later Sheila contacted him again. A text, would he meet her, she wanted to talk. Delighted, he met her in their cafe and she told him she was pregnant. Not for a minute did he question whether he was the father. In his head he straight away made plans as to what the baby would need, where they could go and what he would do with her. Sheila made it clear that she didn’t want him to have any involvement at all, he could provide for the baby and that was that. Nothing Brian could say would change her mind. Resigned to the fact he may never see his child he nevertheless started buying clothes, toys and other essentials from his Disability Living Allowance. He opened an account and put £10 a week into it, “For when she was 18 and needed a car”. Six months later, Hazel was born. Brian was not present at the birth and was only told he had a daughter two weeks after the actual birth by way of a text message. Brian immediately went to see Sheila but she wouldn’t see him. He didn’t see Hazel but was sent a blurry picture to his mobile phone. At that point someone told Brian that he was entitled to see his daughter, he had rights. There then started eight months of assessments; court, doctors and social workers and various distressing court hearings where Brian’s life was dissected. You see, not only did Brian have various medical issues he had a caution when he was 17, for sexual assault. He had kissed a girl, a fifteen year old, who he thought was his best friend. She told her Mum, she told the police and he was arrested. The circumstances were not in dispute but it meant Brian was a potential risk to a child, even his own. Finally the court ordered that Brian be allowed three two hour contact sessions a week, supervised and in a child friendly environment. For three months all went well. Brian had his contact and he thrived from it. He had a new tattoo on his arm proudly proclaiming his daughters name and date of birth. He was in his own words, “as happy as I had ever been”. Then, through no fault of his own his benefits money changed and he had less to live on. Some weeks he could not afford to pay the maintenance he had been paying to Sheila. Suddenly Hazel was ill, she was away, she was asleep and so he was no longer having his contact. She wasn’t, they were all just excuses made up by Sheila. For a while Brian accepted these reasons and did not make a fuss. As the days went by his frustration increased, calls were made to Sheila, texts sent and visits made. Still no contact. Battling with his emotions; the frequency of the calls increased, texts filled Sheila’s inbox, he knocked on her door more and more often. Frustration moved to annoyance and then anger. Words were said in desperation and sent in texts for all to see. Brian was arrested for harassment and I turned out at 11pm to represent him. I spent forty minutes and gleaned all the information above. I was able to judge who Brian was and where the root cause of the problem came from. After advice and an interview, representations were made to the Sgt and a caution given. Brian was also told how he could enforce his court order for contact, and an appointment made for the following day. I went on to the next client and forgot about Brian. I saw him a few weeks later pushing a pram, fussing about a blanket over his baby daughter. We stopped and chatted for a few minutes, made the obligatory comments about a beautiful baby, wished him well and went on with my day. A few days ago I was called to the police station for a “lump of a man” who had been difficult from the moment he came in and was still being difficult in his cell. He had been arrested for common assault. I went straight up to the station. I was told that the client was Brian and was told that four weeks ago he had punched his ex partner over a contact visit, they were both in the middle of a busy shop, people and children had been scared. He was asked to leave and he had walked off. I was told that he had admitted it when he was arrested and that the interview was a formality. There was no injury but having in mind his previous caution on the same victim, he was likely to be charged. I was able to find out by speaking to the officer, although he was reluctant to tell me, that the statement had only been made three days ago. I spoke to Brian. He was in tears, a monster of a man sobbing into his fists in the corner of the interview room. It seemed that, on the day, he and Sheila had made the usual arrangements for a contact visit, but one of them had made a mistake and having waited twenty minutes Sheila had gone off shopping. Brian had called her and when she said she was in the supermarket shopping, he had gone down to speak to her and hopefully persuade Sheila to allow the contact visit. He had gone to the shop where he had found Sheila with her head in a freezer choosing a pizza. When he called her name he said she didn’t answer him but thought she may not have heard him, it was after all a busy shop and her head was in the freezer. “So what did you do?” “I tapped her hard on the shoulder to get her attention so i could speak to her. She shouted at me and the Manager asked me to leave” He denied that he had on he had punched her, and maintained that he was not angry with her. He went on to say that he hadn’t seen Hazel since, and he had not paid Sheila maintenance for three weeks because he had not had contact. Three days ago she said she was going to report the assault. He was scared that he would lose all his contact with Hazel because of more lies. He said that Sheila did not need him now as she had a new boyfriend. He said he didn’t want to talk to the police officers as they wouldn’t let him speak and thought he was stupid. I explained that in law he had committed an assault by touching her without her permission, even if he had not punched her. I told him he needed to explain his history with Sheila to the officers and that the officers had not let him speak before because they wanted to protect him and themselves as the comments needed to be on tape. Brian wasn’t certain whether he could say all he wanted to say properly, he didn’t think he could talk to the officers and let them know all they needed to know. He was scared that he would make his situation worse and by admitting an assault Sheila would go back to the court and he would lose his contact. I drafted a prepared statement, Brian signed it and I read it out for him at the start of the interview. I made it clear that Brian was happy to answer any clarification questions. With patience and cajoling from me and the AA Brian got through the interview. The officer told the Sgt that he had made a full admission to the offence, that he had been frustrated by the contact being messed up and he had hit Sheila on the shoulder. She was factually correct, that’s what he had said in his statement, and in the questions he had then answered. The meaning of what he had said was different, a fact I explained to the Sgt and the officer. After much discussion and thought, it was agreed that on the balance of the evidence, the lack of corroborative witnesses and taking Brian himself into account that there should be no further action and Brian was released. He still has to resolve the issue of contact but at least he does not have the additional burden of a charge to deal with. There are several points to make here about one case, on the face of it a seemingly simple case of assault. If the changes set out in the Legal Aid and Sentencing of Offenders Bill are put into place, simple common assault is very likely to be taken out of the scope for face to face advice. Brian would have only ever received telephone advice. If the Government does not opt in to the EU directive on minimum standards of advice at the police station then the ability to reduce advice to telephone advice only is unfettered. In Brian’s case I could spend time with him initially at the time of his first arrest and obtain the vital information about his personal circumstances. I developed a relationship of trust with him, and even as an authority figure he felt able to ask for me again. I knew his history and knew his difficulties. Had he had telephone advice only on the first or second occasion he would not have spoken to the same advisor, he would not have spoken to me, even if he had asked for me by name, telephone advice being provided by three companies with contracts with the LSC. They would have been unlikely to spend the time I did with him to get the information I did. The intercom system to the cells through which the calls are directed are cut off after six minutes anyway! They would not have been able to draft a prepared statement, or read it out in interview. They would not have been able to make representations to the Custody Sgt at the end of the interview, to correct the officer who was factually correct. They would not have been able to reason with the Sgt or have been able to rely upon the good and sensible relationship I have spent time developing with him and his colleagues. None of that would have happened and Brian would have been facing a charge in court. I was able to use my knowledge of my client, his circumstances and my working relationship with the police to prevent a possible injustice and more importantly save money for the public purse. For the outlay of £150, Brian has no convictions. He will be able to continue to see Hazel and that means he remains stable and happy and does not push him off the rails where who knows what it might cost to put right. The cost of a court case has been avoided. Your right to face to face legal advice is important. Make sure that you can exercise it in the future and let your MP know how you feel. This is a really important issue. Whilst the Govt have voted through the legislation that would allow means testing and the extension of telephone advice it will still need secondary legislation to implement. It is not too late to make this issue more widely known." crimsolicitor.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/just-one-reason-why-telephone-advice-is-not-good-enough/
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 16, 2011 19:49:45 GMT 1
Good story Jman, thanks for posting it as its rare to see anything on the criminal side of legal aid. It also highlights very well the dangers of judging by appearances and labeling people perceived as trouble.
Keep these coming!
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Sept 26, 2011 17:48:43 GMT 1
Avon and Bristol Law Centre "The rising price of justice .Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Bristol Evening Post LEGAL Aid sounds like one of those faceless, bureaucratic institutions that you often hear mentioned, but can't imagine that it affects peoples' lives particularly directly. But David Hornby would tell you otherwise. David, 48, lives with his wife and four children in a housing association property in Almondsbury. He suffers from chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia – a muscular disorder that is characterised by pain – acute and constant pain – across your entire body. It means he is unable to work. However, his incapacity benefit and his wife's part-time earnings meant they could get by. Then changes to the benefits system classified him as fit for "limited work" and David's benefit was stopped. Their ability to make ends meet was thrown into doubt. "I explained about my health," David says, "but the Department of Work and Pensions said I'd have to appeal against the decision and I didn't know what to do. "So I asked Avon & Bristol Law Centre for advice, and they helped me get evidence from my GP and physiotherapist. The Law Centre's benefits expert came with me to the official appeal, and with his help they agreed I really couldn't work. Now I've got my benefits back I can help support my family again." As David was on a low income, his case was funded by legal aid. Now Government proposals mean David, and thousands of other Bristolians who are entitled to legal aid, may not get help in the future if they need advice. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is currently being scrutinised by Parliament's Public Bill Committee. It will report to the House of Commons in October. Most coverage about the bill in the media has focussed on the sentencing of offenders. But it also contains a raft of proposals, which could change the landscape of legal aid forever. Will Stone, supervising solicitor at the Avon and Bristol Law Centre, explains: "Legal aid in its present form provides a crucial safety net for people on low incomes who need help to challenge incorrect or unfair decisions, or prevent exploitation. "If the Government's proposals become law, legal aid will no longer be available for most social welfare law cases. Most people needing help with housing, welfare benefits, debt, employment, immigration, education, clinical negligence and family breakdown will have nowhere to turn. "It will be one law for the rich and another for the poor. "As the Government attempts to reduce public spending on welfare benefits, more ill and vulnerable people like Mr Hornby could be assessed as fit for work unless they can prove otherwise. But without legal aid, there won't be advisers to help them. "Legal aid makes up about a third of the Law Centre's income. We'll lose the majority of this if the bill becomes law. This comes at a time when our other funders are cutting back too. "We'll have to drastically reduce our services and many vulnerable people will go without help." The Law Centre, based in Stokes Croft, offers specialist advice and representation in community care, debt, employment and discrimination, housing, immigration, asylum, mental health, welfare benefits and public law. A number of local solicitors from private practice also offer a free half hour's advice at the centre in education, employment, family and personal injury law. The service covers the former Avon area and, for some types of work, the whole of the South West. "Last year the Law Centre helped 2,500 local people," Will adds. "About one third of these cases were funded by legal aid. "Thanks to the centre's help our clients received nearly £1 million in welfare benefits which they would otherwise have missed out on, and more than £80,000 in compensation payments from employment and discrimination disputes. "Most importantly, these cases demonstrate that, with the Law Centre's help, people's rights can't be ignored. Ability to pay shouldn't decide if people have access to justice." The Government plans to cut £290 million from the more than £2bn annual legal aid bill. Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said: "The justice system is in need of urgent reform, burdened as it is by slow, inefficient and expensive processes and procedures, as well as the sheer numbers of people bringing their problems before the courts. "These reforms will ensure that we have a legal aid system which is targeted at those who need it most, in the most serious cases, as well as providing value for money to the taxpayer." While the bill's proposals mean that the Avon and Bristol Law Centre's services could be drastically cut back, Will says the centre should hopefully survive in some form. For many Law Centres in other parts of the country the picture is more bleak. According to Julie Bishop, director of the Law Centres Federation, 18 of the 56 Law Centres nationally are at risk of closure, because legal aid accounts for nearly half of their income. "The removal of most social welfare law from the scope of legal aid will slash the number of clients receiving help from Law Centres each year." Julie says. "We estimate at least 80,000 people will miss out. Where will those 80,000 people go? Their problems will get worse. "It will cost the Government more in the long run as other public services like local councils, the NHS and the courts have to deal with the consequences of homelessness, family breakdown, physical and mental ill health and crime. "These proposals are economic madness as well as morally unjustifiable." www.thisisbristol.co.uk/rising-price-justice/story-13372021-detail/story.html
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Oct 7, 2011 11:31:47 GMT 1
Soldier wins welfare benefits fight-story from the Mirror 7.10.11 "Hero soldier wins disability allowance fight by Steve White, Daily Mirror 23/09/2011 A SOLDIER whose disability benefit was cut despite his losing a leg in Afghanistan has won back the money. Hero Aron Shelton, 27, had the full £180 a month reinstated yesterday after the Department of Work and Pensions finally admitted there was “clear evidence” he was “virtually unable to walk”. After the five-minute hearing at Scarborough county court, delighted Aron said: “I’m shocked. The DWP gave us no indication they were going to back down. I’m relieved, but it’s ridiculous it’s come to this to get what I knew I was fully entitled to.”..................."! Rest at link below www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/09/23/hero-soldier-wins-disability-allowance-fight-115875-23439488/#.ToWXJYikSmZ.twitter
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Nov 10, 2011 22:11:26 GMT 1
|
|
jman
Full Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by jman on Nov 12, 2011 5:51:52 GMT 1
Ken Clarke and Jonathan Djanogly have constantly been saying that welfare benefits law is just general advice and therefore does not need to be funded by legal aid. They have never produced any evidence to support this supposition and it simply seems to be based on a prejudice-something along the lines of welfare benefits, that's for poor people isn't it, can't be that complicated then. If you think that welfare benefits is simple and not law, just flick through a copy of the case law decisions from the Journal of Welfare benefits law-link below. People dealing with such cases may have learning difficulties, mental health problems or not speak English or be illiterate. Ken Clarke and Jonathan Djanogly and their teams at MOJ and those members who did not vote against the bill think that unimportant. In all these cases they can just represent themselves in the Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. There really needs to be more of an effort to draw to the attention of Lords and MPs just what welfare benefits law is, otherwise the ignorance and arrogance of ministers will hold sway. If anyone wants to add to this thread with links to decisions and case law on welfare benefits cases, so that people coming on site can see what they actually involve, please add further posts to this thread. Link below www.ardendavies.com/downloads/JournalofWelfareBenefitsLaw64.pdf
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jan 15, 2012 14:34:46 GMT 1
Update with hypothetical example of client affected by new WRB changes
|
|
|
Post by predators on Mar 17, 2012 23:20:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by douglas on Mar 28, 2012 5:34:47 GMT 1
|
|