Severely disabled man ‘fears losing carers’ after appeal defeat on council cuts

A severely disabled man fears losing long-term carers after the Court of Appeal upheld cuts to his care funding, say his lawyers.

Luke Davey, 41, had attempted to overturn Oxfordshire County Council’s decision to reduce by 42% his weekly personal budget which funded a round-the-clock care package including the wages of personal assistants with him for nearly 20 years.

The local authority imposed the reductions after assessing that it would be good for Mr Davey to spend more time alone, and that he should reduce payments to his personal assistants to minimum wage levels.

High Court judge Mr Justice Morris ruled the council had acted within its powers, and on Friday three appeal judges unanimously agreed.

The appeal court expressed “great respect” for the manner in which Mr Davey, his family and his team of personal assistants had coped with his difficult situation, but declared the council had not acted unlawfully.

Mr Davey, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, is among many disabled people who say they are being seriously affected by the Government’s decision in June 2015 to axe the independent living fund (ILF), which helped them live independent lives in the community.

Critics of the Government say the case of Mr Davey, who is registered blind, illustrates how a failure to ring-fence sufficient money for the disabled under the Care Act 2014 has led to significant reductions in adult care packages, which are now totally the responsibility of cash-strapped local authorities.

Lord Justice McFarlane, Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Thirlwall have given Mr Davey and his lawyers until September 18 to consider making a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Davey case is believed to be the first to analyse key issues on care planning under the Care Act.

Yogi Amin (pictured), from law firm Irwin Mitchell, which is acting for Mr Davey, said: “Luke and his family are disappointed that the council has cut his care package and is insisting that his long-standing carers should have their wages reduced to minimum wage, which he fears will force them to leave from the job they were doing to support him.

“They are now very concerned about the possible detrimental impact on his future care.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which was not party to the appeal, intervened to argue that the funding cuts went against principles referred to in Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Article 19 recognises the right of all persons with disabilities to “live independently and be included in the community”.

The High Court ruled the convention was an international treaty which created no direct obligations in UK domestic law, and no “specific ambiguity” had been identified in the 2014 Act for which Article 19 might serve “as an interpretive tool”.

Lord Justice Bean, giving the appeal court lead judgment, said the High Court analysis seemed “entirely correct”, but it was still open for the issue to be argued in a future case.

EHRC executive director Ben Wilson said: “For disabled people, the ability to live independently is one of their greatest concerns.

“We are disappointed for Mr Davey, especially in light of the UN’s damning assessment of the UK’s failure to protect disabled people’s rights.”

Before the ILF was axed, Mr Davey received adult social care support totalling £1,651 per week.

Part of the funding was provided by Oxfordshire council but it also included a £730 contribution from the ILF, an NHS contribution and a small means-tested contribution from Mr Davey himself.

When the ILF disappeared, the council reduced the overall sum to £950 a week from May 1 last year after an experienced social worker assessed that it would be positive for Mr Davey “to be able to spend more time alone to develop his independence and reduce anxiety”.

The court heard Mr Davey had eventually agreed to spend four hours alone and negotiated with his team to accept some, but not all, of the proposed reductions in their terms and conditions of employment.

This still left a shortfall in his budget and his mother Jasmine, who is 76 and has cancer, faced having to fill the gaps in his care, said his counsel Jamie Burton.

A spokesman for Oxfordshire council said after the appeal court decision: “We will continue to work with Mr Davey and his family to ensure he gets the provision of essential services he needs.

“The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the council’s assessment of Mr Davey’s care needs and the allocated amount for his personal budget is appropriate and lawful.

“All local authorities who provide adult social care services against a background of financial constraints in the public sector are having to make difficult decisions.”

Inclusion London, which supports deaf and disabled people’s organisations across the capital, staged a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Inclusion London campaigner Svetlana Kotova said: “This is not about disabled people demanding golden cars. This is about very basic things.”

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2017, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) Irwin Mitchell.}