Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Your phrase sums it up in a nutshell, Duffy......a perfect storm. And the storm clouds have been quietly gathering for a good few years.

 

I have posted several times on different threads, about how it would be far more cost effective - not to mention better for both families and young people - if Herefordshire kept those children that require residential placements within county. We have the expertise, and we most certainly have the need.

 

On the subject of Ledbury Road, both MP's appear to be keeping a very low profile. As you say, it is this Tory governments extreme cuts which sees the back of these vital services. Perhaps it's little wonder they have nothing to say.

 

I hope all those who saw fit to vote Conservative in the last election are proud  at what their votes have achieved - an attack on the weakest and most vulnerable in our so called society.

Posted

I don't think this has been included in the discussion yet.  There has to be a `Local Offer' in which Health Authorities (CCG) and the local authority (Herefordshire council) publish clearly what is offered to children with Special Needs and their families.  The acronym is SEND (special educational needs and disabilities).  There is statutory guidance (i.e. compulsory guidance) published by the government.  Here are some extracts.  I have put some of the words in bold.

 

 

In this Code of Practice, where the text uses the word ‘must’ it refers to a statutory requirement under primary legislation, regulations or case law. The bodies listed in paragraph iv. must have regard to the Code of Practice. This means that whenever they are taking decisions they must give consideration to what the Code says. They cannot ignore it. They must fulfil their statutory duties towards children and young people with SEN or disabilities in the light of the guidance set out in it. They must be able to demonstrate in their arrangements for children and young people with SEN or disabilities that they are fulfilling their statutory duty to have regard to the Code. So, where the text uses the word ‘should’ it means that the guidance contained in this Code must be considered and that those who must have regard to it will be expected to explain any departure from it.

 

 

 

......local authorities, in carrying out their functions under the Act in relation to disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs (SEN), must have regard to:

• the views, wishes and feelings of the child or young person, and the child’s parents

-  the importance of the child or young person, and the child’s parents, participating as fully as possible in decisions, and being provided with the information and support necessary to enable participation in those decisions.

 

 

 

Participating in decision making

 

1.3 Local authorities must ensure that children, their parents and young people are involved in discussions and decisions about their individual support and about local provision.

 

 

And from the guidance for health professionals; in a section on the local offer

 

 

It should also include:

• universal, preventative services and specialist services

• therapy services including speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy and services relating to mental health, such as arts therapies (these must be treated as special educational provision where they educate or train a child or young person)

• wheelchair services and community equipment, children’s community nursing, continence services

• palliative and respite care and other provision for children with complex health needs

• other services, such as emergency care provision

 

But then:

 

 

Local authorities must consult children with SEN or disabilities and their parents and young people with SEN or disabilities in preparing the Local Offer and reviewing it. Local authorities must also publish comments from them about the Local Offer along with details of what action they intend to take in response

 

So Chris Baird's apology about not letting the parents know about 1 Ledbury Rd sooner is extremely wide of the mark.  He had a statutory duty to consult them (and the children, as far as possible) about any change to provision in advance, and to publish the consultation.  He also has a statutory duty to explain why he hasn't done so.  I don't think that "you weren't supposed to find out yet" will quite meet this duty.

 

For those of you with enough time to look at the full documents:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357645/Health_professionals_guide_to_the_SEND_code_of_practice_-_Sept14.pdf

Posted

And another document. The children classified as having SEND are, unfortunately, victims of the council's obsession with `Transformation'.  This document is a contender for the world record for cramming in council management jargon, but you just need to scroll down to section 3.2 (f) to see, in code, the plan to close 1, Ledbury Road.

 

Even in obscure documents like this one, they couldn't bring themselves to spell out what they actually meant by the phrase:

 

 

Complete phase 2 of short breaks re-commissioning by March 2016 to further develop the use of community or family based, rather than institution based, respite care

 

 

Here is the link

 

https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/media/7963735/herefordshire_children_with_disabilities_transformation_programme_2015-18.pdf 

 

One of the progamme `sponsors' is Cllr J Millar, so other councillors who have been kept in the dark could have a word with him.

Posted

Just to bring you up to date. Have been working with parents of Autistic children and there has been some movement with officers of WVHT and Council. Still some way to go and work to do but these things always take time. Meanwhile your support is greatly appreciated.

Posted

Just to bring you up to date. Have been working with parents of Autistic children and there has been some movement with officers of WVHT and Council. Still some way to go and work to do but these things always take time. Meanwhile your support is greatly appreciated.

 

Chris,

As per my posts, it is unlawful for the local authority/health authority to review or change the Local Offer without consulting the parents and young people and publishing both the response from those groups and the consequent response from the local authority.  If that wasn't done, as seems to be the case, then the council and health authority have acted unlawfully.  Chris Baird's statement that they planned to inform parents at a later date seems to reinforce the idea that his actions were unlawful - it implies a deliberate decision to withhold the plans/proposals.  Have you put that to the officers concerned?

Posted

Chris, My good friend The Professor aka Gdj is right. I've read the documents from front to cover and the Councils actions are illegal and clearly the consultation wasn't done properly to satisfy their statutory responsibility and comply with the law.

Please our Chris, kick this ball about for a little while and see where it takes you. If ever there's something to bite and chew on and kick up a fuss it's this disclosure from Gdj. You've got the teeth Chris as I quickly discovered when you joined these pages.

Give it a go lad. Start biting!

Posted

Chris, My good friend The Professor aka Gdj is right. I've read the documents from front to cover and the Councils actions are illegal and clearly the consultation wasn't done properly to satisfy their statutory responsibility and comply with the law.

Please our Chris, kick this ball about for a little while and see where it takes you. If ever there's something to bite and chew on and kick up a fuss it's this disclosure from Gdj. You've got the teeth Chris as I quickly discovered when you joined these pages.

Give it a go lad. Start biting!

Go on chris have a bit after all you are in a position to do so!

Posted

Yes, come on Chris!

 

Armed with the knowledge, and wealth of information that GDJ has armed you with..... go in fighting!

 

You have right - and the law - on your side!

 

They need to do a U - Turn on this one. Be the man  to ensure this happens, and put a stop to this shameful saga.

Posted

Chris, My good friend The Professor aka Gdj is right. I've read the documents from front to cover and the Councils actions are illegal and clearly the consultation wasn't done properly to satisfy their statutory responsibility and comply with the law.

Please our Chris, kick this ball about for a little while and see where it takes you. If ever there's something to bite and chew on and kick up a fuss it's this disclosure from Gdj. You've got the teeth Chris as I quickly discovered when you joined these pages.

Give it a go lad. Start biting!

 

Good luck Chris. 

Posted

As part of the consultation, we will be visiting a number of locations across the county to answer any questions residents may have about our priorities, budget and services. All of our events will run from 10am to 2pm.

 

Bromyard: The Bromyard Centre

Thursday 13 August

Thursday 1 October

 

Hereford: High Town

Wednesday 5 August

Wednesday 23 September

 

Hereford: The Old Market

Friday 4 September

 

Kington: Place de Marines

Friday 14 August

Friday 11 September

 

Ledbury: Charter Market

Tuesday 4 August

Tuesday 22 September

 

Leominster: Corn Square

Friday 7 August

Friday 18 September

 

Ross-on-Wye: Market Hall

Thursday 6 August

Thursday 24 September

 

We will also be holding four question and answer sessions on Twitter and Facebook.

 

Twitter

Thursday 30 July 5pm – 6pm

Monday 14 September 6pm – 7pm

 

Facebook

Wednesday 5 August 5pm – 6pm

Monday 21 September 6pm – 7pm

 

 

 

Here is the link to the online questionnaire and here is the link to all the other information including the forthcoming dates Ubique has already listed above, I have also added the Hereford dates to the community calendar. 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I don't think this has been included in the discussion yet.  There has to be a `Local Offer' in which Health Authorities (CCG) and the local authority (Herefordshire council) publish clearly what is offered to children with Special Needs and their families.  The acronym is SEND (special educational needs and disabilities).  There is statutory guidance (i.e. compulsory guidance) published by the government.  Here are some extracts.  I have put some of the words in bold.

 

 

 

 

 

A very interesting post. I thought the lack of consultation was likely to be illegal because of the provisions of the The Public Services (Social Value) Act which requires consultation with service users and other interested parties by "commissioners" particularly when thinking of ending a service. Also thought there might be an implied duty to consult due to precedent.  Didn't know that there was legislation specifically relating to those with special needs and families.

 

Shouldn't the Council's lawyers be advising Mr Baird and colleagues of their legal duty in this situation?

Posted

 

 

Shouldn't the Council's lawyers be advising Mr Baird and colleagues of their legal duty in this situation?

 

I'm sure if Paul Cardin was still active here he would have something to say about Bill Norman's attitude to unlawful treatment of the disabled.

 

So I hope he doesn't mind me posting this link in which our legal director finds an ingenious way to get his then employers (Wirral Council) off the hook regarding disability discrimination - arguing that the unfair treatment was not because they were disabled, their disability was just a unrelated issue.  This link taken from Paul C's webstie:

 

 

https://easyvirtualassistance.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/bn-to-jg-letter-15-10-2010-discrimination.jpg

 

(Paul also has a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to an MP, essentially saying that Bill Norman was wrong)

 

https://i1.wp.com/www.easyvirtualassistance.co.uk/Angela%20Eagle%20Mike%20Smith%20Disability%20Discrimination.jpg

 

 

Perhaps our councillors will remember this track record when considering the legal advice that we are all paying handsomely for.

Posted

 

 

Perhaps our councillors will remember this track record when considering the legal advice that we are all paying handsomely for.

A point Cllr Chappell might like to pursue? i.e. what legal advice was sought and and given re: 1 Ledbury Road.

 

The letter from Cardin's website was really quite something: There was no disability discrimination because the Council was overcharging everybody, disabled or not. Extraordinary. Then again, coming from a man who seems to have spent his entire career defending the indefensible, possibly not. 

Posted

No 1 Ledbury Road is the most important issue at the moment, we can deal with Blaackmarston at a slower rate.

 

I will be unable to ask Bill Norman questions about legality of process, as he has been made redundant with immediate effect and no long works for Herefordshire Council as I understand it!

Posted

I think a separate thread for Ledbury rd would be good, as suggested.

 

Has anyone been watching "The special needs hotel" on Channel5? Residential training for young adults with SEND running a hotel called Foxes in Somerset. Looks good, I wonder if Herefordshire sends young people there or if it could be a model to be copied.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...