http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/02/06/important-an-urgent-call-for-your-evidenc

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/02/06/important-an-urgent-call-for-your-evidence-for-legal-action-to-challenge-dla-to-pip-regulations-jane-young-wants-to-hear-from-you/
I will let the post like the Lawyers featured in the post do the talking, whilst I implore agreement and support from the entire MSE Community and MSE on High.

IMPORTANT! An URGENT Call for YOUR Evidence for Legal Action to Challenge DLA-to-PIP regulations ~ Jane Young wants to hear from YOU
blacktrianglecampaign.orgJjFebruary 6th, 2013view original

DPAC, Black Triangle, UK Uncut and allies shut down central London
Photo by: Jan 2012
If you can act on this information, we need to hear from you QUICKLY

On Tuesday 5 February, the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 were passed by the House of Commons Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee.

The debate lasted just a little over an hour, very few members of the committee contributed and all voted along party lines. And that was it.

Regulations which determine the independence and well-being of almost 2 million disabled people were dealt with quickly and quietly, like some routine to be got out of the way.

But this is NOT routine for disabled people.

Across the length and breadth of the UK disabled people’s lives will change immeasurably as a result of the vote this afternoon.

Many will find the long term support provided by Disability Living Allowance stripped away by the application of a rigid and limited set of activities and descriptors.

In particular, people with mobility impairments who can walk more than 20 metres but not more than about 50 metres may lose their vital Motability vehicle (or other independent mobility solution funded by their higher rate mobility component DLA) and, with it, their independence.

But the fight is not yet completely lost.

Our lawyers (Leigh Day solicitors and human rights barristers from Doughty Street Chambers) advise that this lowering of the distance criteria from 50 metres to 20 metres could be unlawful and are considering how we can challenge the regulations.

To do so, of course, we need claimants whose circumstances make them suitable candidates to participate in such a challenge. For the best prospect of success, the barristers have set the following criteria (some essential, some desirable):

Essential criteria

These are the essential attributes of a suitable claimant for judicial review of the 20-metre walking distance criteria for enhanced mobility component of PIP:

Eligible for legal aid – check your eligibility at http://legalaidcalculator.justice.gov.uk
Currently have a DLA award including Higher Rate Mobility component
DLA award NOT due to expire until after October 2013
DLA re-assessment under PIP, whenever that occurs, is at risk of losing out on the enhanced mobility component of PIP because they can walk over 20 metres or so but cannot walk up to 50 metres. This probably means their mobility is stable – either until the expiry date of their current award (if it is time limited), or until at least 2015 (if their current award is indefinite).
Does NOT have any difficulty planning or following a journey (eg due to mental health, cognitive or sensory impairment)
Desirable criteria

These additional criteria are desirable (but NOT essential) attributes of a suitable claimant:

DLA award expires/due for renewal soon after October 2013
Has a car or wheelchair accessible vehicle under the Motability scheme
If you think you satisfy at least the essential criteria…

Contact me IMMEDIATELY using the contact form at:

http://janeyoung.me.uk/contact/

Explain that you wish to be considered to take part in a legal challenge to the PIP regulations.


There’s no time to lose… please share this post everywhere so we have the best chance of challenging the PIP regulations.


Thanks!

Jane Young

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Thanks in advance for any and all support from MSE Family.xxx
Please note I have highlighted the evidence for this thread in Red Highlighted Paragraph.
Lets see this challenge go as the Lawyers and Black Triangle and many other disability organisations think it should.
xxxx

cockaleekee

Such a shame (and no surprise) that the sols will only entertain supporting a claimant that is eligible for Legal Aid. Anyone would think they were in it for the publicity!

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

What are sols? *puzzled*.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

I don't entertain such negative views of the Lawyers who believe there is a case.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

I trust the Lawyers and what they are doing/saying.
I read a Law Society paper on the Legal aid reforms which I thought was very fair and it answered complaints about legal costs being excessive by proposing budgetry controls and constraints. I thought it was a great paper.
Seen on Justice campaign site.
From what little I have seen of our Lawyerly friends they speak a lot of sense, my view is from the Left.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Shame to have such a cynical comment.
Surely the no of views might suggest other perspectives are possible?

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Paper authored by female head or Senior Figure of the Law Society who are campaigning.
Thanks MSE for page views and thanks.xxx

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Thanks@woodbine for sticking up for me on this thread.xxxxx

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

THE DOWLER FAMILY WRITE A LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER SOUNDING OFF ABOUT NO WIN NO FEE REFORMS.

The Dowler family have asked the Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg to stop the unjust and unfair legislation that will significantly weaken the 'no win no fee' mechanisms they used to fight their case against News International. These changes threaten to remove access to justice for millions of middle-income families and individuals.





Writing an open letter to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister the Dowlers have called for the current way of funding cases by 'no win, no fee' agreements to remain - and not be effectively dismantled as envisaged by Coalition government plans. They say, "We were lucky that we fell under [the current] system. We understand that the new law affects thousands of people who want to sue News of the World and other news papers."

The reforms, currently being pushed through Parliament by Conservative Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly, are set to make "no win, no fee" conditional fee arrangements much more difficult for ordinary people to use. This will remove access to justice for millions of middle income; middle England families who are victims of accidents, fraud, negligence, injustice and other wrongdoing.

The Law Society has warned the government that the proposed changes to the 'no win, no fee' rules seriously undermine access to justice for families like the Dowlers and other victims of wrongdoing.

Des Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society said:

"After all they have been through we welcome - and are humbled by - the intervention of the Dowler family in this debate. They have succeeded in making it clear to the Prime Minister that it is ordinary families with terrible life challenges that will be impacted the most. They will be the losers. As a society we need to protect them and their access to justice.

The only winners from the government's proposed changes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will be insurance companies and large corporations, that will now have to pay out hundreds of millions of pounds less when they commit negligence or other wrongs, such as illegal phone tapping. The losers will be victims of wrongdoing, who will in future be simply too intimidated by the financial risks to seeking redress.

Coupled with the proposed £350 million cut to legal aid funding, these changes to 'no win, no fee' agreements form a devastating dual assault on access to justice. In the criminal justice field the Government is quite rightly trying to place the victim at the heart of the system. Why then -in the civil justice field - is it willing to risk removing victims from the heart of the civil justice system and replacing them with the interests of the insurance lobby and large multi-national corporations like News International? The government must re-examine these plans as a matter of urgent priority."

The Dowlers close their letter by warning the Prime Minister: "We are sure you do not want to go down as the Prime Minister who took the rights away from ordinary people so that large companies could print whatever they like and break the law".

The Blog
Lords vote to protect victims of domestic violence
Last night in the House of Lords Peers there were eight vote covering the need for the Bill to contain read more...

Rise of the DIY divorce: Hard-up couples causing court chaos by representing themselves amid cutbacks
Hard-up couples choosing to represent themselves are causing chaos in the divorce courts, it has emerged. The recession and upcoming read more...

Women’s alliance lobbies Clarke over legal aid reforms
The Women’s Institute and Mumsnet are among a powerful alliance of women’s groups that has written a private letter to read more...

Facebook

Twitter
Sound Off About: Getting tweets... 20 minutes ago
CAMPAIGN SUPPORTED BY:
all sorts of key bodies
see the link
http://soundoffforjustice.org/dowler-family-letter

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

This Government’s immediate priority is to reduce the financial deficit and encourage economic recovery.
We have made it clear that the main burden of the deficit reduction will be borne by reduced public
spending, achieved by financial discipline and the most efficient and effective delivery of public services.
I am seeking to develop an approach to legal aid spending which balances these necessary financial
constraints with the interests of justice and the wider public interest.
Kenneth Clarke, announcing the Ministry of Justice review of legal aid, 23 June 2010

Overview
The Government’s proposed cuts to civil legal aid are based on flawed assumptions that cast doubt on whether
they can deliver the savings that have been promised.
As presently drafted, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will, on the Government’s
figures, end legal aid for 645,000 civil and family law cases every year. This figure includes 595,000 Legal Help
cases and 50,000 cases of Legal Representation.
So, the changes restrict legal advice and access to justice for the country’s poorest and most vulnerable: but
they also are likely to add to costs elsewhere within the Ministry of Justice and other Government Departments,
undermining the Government’s deficit reduction programme.
The Law Society’s new analysis of the detail behind the £350 million worth of savings claimed by the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ) shows that:
• Most of the claimed savings have so little data or evidence underpinning them that there can be no
confidence they will be achieved.
• The MoJ admits that it does not have evidence to support its position in 15 separate statements in the
impact assessments published with the Bill.
• The same impact assessments include 30 admissions by the MoJ that it is speculating on the likely effects of
its proposals.
• When asked by the Justice Select Committee to assess the cost of the legal aid cuts to other Government
departments, the MoJ replied “It is not possible to quantify accurately these wider costs.”
• The MoJ predicts only 4,000 to 10,000 additional requests for family mediation a year after the cuts –
despite withdrawing legal aid from 255,000 family law cases, including child contact and financial
agreements.
• The number of cases that will lose legal aid has risen from 568,000 in the legal aid green paper last year to
645,000 in the Bill now before Parliament. But the claimed saving to taxpayers has risen by only £1m, from
£279m to £280m. No explanation is given for the fact that the cost of the additional cases that will be lost
appears to be under £1.50 each.
This is not evidence-based policy making. The MoJ says: “The lack of a robust evidence base means we are
unable to draw conclusions as to whether wider economic and social costs are likely to result from the
programme of reform or to estimate their size.”
The Law Society believes that the social consequences of the Legal Aid Bill, in terms of miscarriages of justice
and barriers to people seeking remedies for harms that are no fault of their own, are disproportionate to the
savings that can be achieved by withdrawing civil legal aid from 645,000 cases a year.
We call on the Government to work with us and bring forward better, evidence-based, reforms to civil legal aid
that will make the required savings while maintaining access to justice for those most in need. It is not too late.
Missing millions
Government plans for civil legal aid offer unproven
savings and will incur unaccounted-for costs
“
This Government’s immediate priority is to reduce the financial deficit and encourage economic recovery.
We have made it clear that the main burden of the deficit reduction will be borne by reduced public
spending, achieved by financial discipline and the most efficient and effective delivery of public services.
I am seeking to develop an approach to legal aid spending which balances these necessary financial
constraints with the interests of justice and the wider public interest.
Kenneth Clarke, announcing the Ministry of Justice review of legal aid, 23 June 2010
“
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk