HRMC of DLA to replace home/special school transport?

bb2

*Does anybody have any experience of successfully challenging a proposed change of policy like this, please?* We cannot see how parents/carers (encouraged to work to support the family) can continue to work if they have to deliver and collect their children/young adults to special school/college at 9am and 3.30pm. There are no 'extended' special schools (ie no 'breakfast' or 'after-school' clubs for youngsters with severe/profound disabilities) in this borough. At least at present, a child or young adult with a Statement of SEN is likely to receive home/school transport under that Statement. Often this is specialised provision adapted for wheelchairs and with escorts aboard to ensure safety (re behavioural and medical vulnerabilities). The buses may arrive around 8am and drop off at 4pm, permitting an approx 6-hour working day for parents/carers that may be their only respite from 24-hour caring for extremely challenging dependents - greatly valued where this is possible (demands highly flexible, understanding employers and colleagues!).

Our LA has produced a draft policy document on Home to School Travel for children & young people with SEN suggesting, among many other things, that where a child is in receipt of the Higher Rate Mobility Component of DLA, then the vehicle or allowance should be used by the family/carers to transport that child to and from school. This assumes that a parent/carer is available in normal working hours to drive the vehicle.

Earlier today I called the Disability & Carers Service ("DCS"), Section 22 at the DWP, for more information on the purpose of the HRMC since a quick ask among parents/carers I know suggested a common understanding that the DLA mobility component is intended to facilitate medical appointments and access to recreational activities, not for school runs as the LA has a duty to provide transport anyway. However the DCS Team Leader told me that the HRMC is "a contribution towards the costs of meeting the mobility needs of the named individual" therefore if the beneficiary is a child who needs to get to school, then the benefit could be used for that purpose.

This is another example of the gap between what we are led to believe is government policy - to provide greater support to families with chlldren with disabilities - and what is delivered at local level where public/service user "consultations" are followed by swingeing cuts to services in order to stay within budgets.

Most of us try to be helpful for the general good but when you're living daily on the edge of "drowning, not waving", it becomes really hard to see the bigger picture. Apologies if this particular issue has been raised before; having found this site today, I just wanted to post to see what others with more objective experience might have to say. Thank you.

stazi

Either level of DLA Mob being about 'a contribution towards the costs of meeting the mobility needs of the named individual', sounds correct, and is also what your LA appears to think it's for- including to/from school.

You say that the 'LA has a duty to provide transport anyway'. Does it? Where does it say that?

Sorry, about being direct and to the point, but you have made assumptions on what you think DLA Mob is for, and also what you say your LA 'has a duty to provide'. If it is written that they do have this duty as you say- I would suggest you remind them of that.

bb2

Thanks. Many pupils with a Statement of (their individual) Special Educational Needs, including my own offspring, will have the provision of transportation to and from school included in the relevant section. Since this is a legal document, we are unlikely to lose this essential benefit - however if there is a global policy change then long-established practice all around the country will mean that new applicants have no such assurance. As far as I know, this would establish a precedent that could be followed by LAs everywhere. The 2006 parliamentary review of sevices for disabled children and their families sponsored by Ed Balls identified a general lack of support and suggested that a contributory factor was the inability of central government to ringfence funding as it was passed on to LAs for local use. This would be an additional 'discretionary' local service if implemented.

Trix

stazi wrote: »

You say that the 'LA has a duty to provide transport anyway'. Does it? Where does it say that?

HERE

Local authorities must provide transport where they consider it necessary to ensure that a child goes to school. If transport is necessary, then it must be provided free of charge.

Local authorities should take any disability or special educational needs into account when deciding whether transport is necessary for a child.
If your child has a statement of SEN and has transport requirements written into their statement, your local authority must meet them.

bb2

Thank you for your response, Trix. Would you please provide sources for the above 2 quotes? Cheers.

Trix

I did - click on the blue word that says 'here'

bb2

Clever clogs! Thanks - a helpful link.
:female

bb2

:female: even!

Trix

Well that's females for ya