Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Disabled teens in transport U-turn

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
28 July 2010
THE start of a controversial new post-16 transport policy has been deferred by Northamptonshire County Council for six months following a furious backlash to the proposed changes.
Throughout the past month, the Chronicle & Echo has highlighted the plight of a number of parents of disabled children who could be forced to pay thousands of pounds a year following the county council's decision to remove free transport.

Some par
ents, who are facing paying a bill for up to half their child's transport, have contacted their solicitors to launch a legal challenge against the cuts.

Yesterday, Councillor Heather Smith (Con, Prebendal), cabinet member for transport, minerals and waste, announced that in view of the "strong feeling" generated by the proposed change in policy, a fuller consultation needed to be carried out.

Councillor Smith said that the parents' complaints had been "listened to" and the council had decided to extend the period of consultation to "fully understand and assess the impact that the proposed changes will have on individuals concerned".

She said: "We have quickly been made aware of the impact that this policy would have on parents and what this demonstrates is that we have listened and recognised their concerns.

"We will now have more time to have in-depth discussions with families affected so we can be fair to all."

David Farquhar, head of transport and highways, said the policy had never meant to be rigidly imposed so that parents either paid 50 per cent of the transport costs or nothing.

He said: "Part of the evolution of any policy is to try to identify and understand the impact on the individual. There are many different variables to consider."

Councillor Smith said she hoped that a "sliding scale" could be constructed so that a parent of a disabled child earning just over the £16,000 a year threshold did not have to pay the full 50 per cent transport costs.

She said: "Being discriminatory was never our intention. We wanted to create a system that was absolutely fair. We will now revisit and assess each case individually."

Councillor Smith said the costs of carrying on with the old post-16 transport policy into the next financial year had not been budgeted for but would have to absorbed by the county council.

The findings of the extended consultation period will be reported back to cabinet in January 2011 for further consideration.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 July 2010 8:23 AM
  • Source: Northampton Chron & Echo
  • Location: Northampton
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Jolicobbler,

28/07/2010 09:22:58
Good. I'm sure they were also quickly made aware they would be sued.
2

,

28/07/2010 13:15:27
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
3

Yvonne Hossack,

Kettering 28/07/2010 13:16:54
Letter Before Claim continued!

It is not clear who the questions have been frequently asked by bearing in mind that neither T nor, I understand, any other young person with learning disabilities or their parents have been consulted.

Nor, it appears, has an Equality Impact Assessment been carried out in accordance with case-law. The cases of Chavda, R (Smith) v Portsmouth City Council and R (Boyejo) v Barnet London Borough refer.

I say that it appears that no EIA has been compiled for the following reasons:

1. Lack of consultation with disabled people
2. The fact that T cannot weight-bear and is wheelchair bound, is non-verbal, has to be fed, suffers from fits continually and has the ability of a 10 month old baby and
3. The fact that NCC has offered T a bicycle

T is eligible for public funding to challenge the decision of NCC. The grounds of challenge would be:

i) Lack of consultation making the decision unlawful
ii) Failure to carry out any, or any lawful, Equality Impact Assessment
iii) The decision is indirectly discriminatory against people who, by nature of their disability, are less likely to be able to walk unaccompanied and/or to ride a bicycle

In order to avoid litigation I am asking that the Authority rescind its transport policy insofar as it affects T and other learning disabled children and young people. The appeals procedure cannot, of course, result in the decision being rescinded. The ambit of the appeal would be to apply the rules as they have become and not as they should lawfully be.

Arrangements have been made for me to attend a number of others affected by this decision. It would be helpful to public funds in terms of legal aid as well as the Authority’s own risk of costs for this matter to be short circuited now and resolved. Please respond as soon as you can and at least within 14 days.

Pre-action Protocol

Claimant: T who proceeds by his mother and litigation friend
4

Jimbor ,

Thorplands 28/07/2010 13:34:50
It would appear that Northamptonshire County Councillors have not thought this through at all. Their proposals are wholly impractical, discrimanatory and unworkable . Has NCC still got funds for taxis for councillors, it seems they do. Why?
5

Jimbor ,

Thorplands 28/07/2010 13:45:05
What's all this guff from NCC about "fairness"?

Why is it that NCC are rearranging council wages to take £4000 away from workers earning £ 20,000 to give it to the less well paid, yet councillors allowances of £34,000 plus are not rearranged to help those councillors earning £9000? Please explain?
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.