Hi all,

Looking for some feedback/advice - our local authority community care department currently looking at their transport budget. Results proving very amusing to say least.Scenario last week: one client offered 2 days day care - they will pay 2 days care and 1 day transport thus client needs to secure transport for the day without. Upon questioning I was advised client needs to use his mobility component of DLA (currently £43.45 p/week) to pay for this "this is what he is paid it for (said the lady)…… For this particular journey for my client it will cost about £26 for the day. Anyone help with regards to legal position after all local authority have assessed and offered the place but seems unbelievable that they can provide transport for one day and tell him to arrange and pay for transport on the other.

Grateful for any advice/assistance on this one.
Thanks

Hi you may wish to refer your local authority to s73 (14) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, 1992 where the mobility component is to be disregarded in any means testing of a person

I thought LA's usually laid on the transport and charged service users a flat fee, equivalent to a bus fare?

Thanks for that Shabir, I'll ask them nicely to have a read of this when I next speak to them.

Your authority aren't alone in loking at this. But I'm not sure it is simply a matter of applying S.73(14).

Certainly LA's cannot charge on mobility component. But it doesn't sound like that is what they are doing. It sounds like they are applying the two part community care assessment process in S.47, NHS & Community Care Act 1990:
1. assess needs
2. decide whether needs call for the provision of services

If 2 includes an overall assessment of a person's currently available mobility arrangements, is it a test of 'means' prohibited by S.73(14)?

Don't know the answer but put a case - suppose someone has a Motability car but claim they need transport to day care because their carer is out using the car/doesn't want to drive them. Wouldn't the LA be entitled to conclude there was no need for a transport service? And if a Motability car, why not mobility component?

That is the sort of argument we can expect to see used and may need answers to. Will depend a lot on how any policy is framed presumably.

Richard Atkinson

You are quite right Richard - a lot will depend on how the policy is framed. I also agree with the scenario you give so I'm going to chase them up for a copy of the policy (if they have one/once they devise one).

May

Section 17(2) (a) of HASSASSA allows Local Authorities to charge for community care services assessed and provided under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act (1948). The FACS framework prioritises access and determines how much the LA are prepared to provide in any case. A combination of the above is probably at work here.

The sentiment quoted above that because the service user gets DLA Mob therefore 'can afford to pay' for one of the weekly journeys is probably no more than a harshly applied operating assumption made at a time when Local Authorities are seeking to maximise income from charging. Sadly it's not uncommon!

If the new charging policy were to formalise this assumption in writing, I'm sure there'd be a case of illegal charging going on. With the facts described above, however, I can see little to contest other than a harsh application of 17(2)(a). A flat rate pay-per-use system of charges is more typical, making the charge on DLA Mob indirect at best.

There is discretion for charges to be reduced or waived, and services shouldn't be withdrawn if a service user does not pay. Ultimately the onus will be on the service user to show income reduced below the protected minimum allowed under Fairer Charging. If this can't be done, recovery via the courts of unpaid charges can't be ruled out if the services are still accepted.

Fred