homecare charging

And so we're back, and all set to go with more tales of the realities of public sector cuts...

We begin with the charming Hammersmith and Fulham council - the Tory flagship borough that keeps council tax down by raising charges on services used by the borough's poorest citizens.

Readers of this site will know that we've followed Hammersmith and Fulham council over the last couple of years as it has slashed services and funds, and looked to screw the shortfall out of people who can least afford it.    

The story we bring you today is of three disabled citizens who brought a case against the council for its decision to start charging for previously free home care.

The courts found in favour of the council, which had not technically broken the law by introducing homecare charges. That decision was upheld in a recent appeal. 

The justice who did the upholding didn't care much for his decision, or the council, though: he stated that the council had ‘sacrificed free home care on the altar of a council tax reduction for which there was no legal requirement,’ and observed that the good people of Hammersmith and Fulham might be surprised to hear that their council tax reductions were being paid for by people with disabilities.  

Plenty more to come on all of this - for now, below is the Hammersmith & Fulham Coalition against Community Care Cuts' press release on the decision. This is what a council tax cut really looks like. It ain't about saving money, or even making money, if the figures quoted in the release below are anything to go by. It's about shifting the tax burden from potential (upper and middle income) voters to the poor.

'Whilst endorsing the concerns expressed by two senior members of the Court of Appeal, “HAFCAC, was deeply disappointed by the outcome of the recent Judicial Review appeal, heard in the High Court regarding Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s decision in June 2008 to introduce charging for essential home care services for disabled and older people from January 1st 2009.

The judgment

'Although the Court of Appeal ruled that the Council’s decision was
lawful, two of the Lord Justice’s expressed concern: one Lord Justice Sedley stated that he had ‘very considerable misgivings’ which were shared by the other, Lord Clarke, Master of the Rolls, an inaugural member of the Supreme Court.