Blog

One of Britain’s biggest care agencies has settled out of court a claim for allegedly paying below the minimum wage by refusing to reimburse staff for their travel time between home visits.

With mental health services so limited in Cornwall so many people are being placed out of Cornwall and very far away from their home and family.

The Court of Protection has authorised the withdrawal of treatment for a patient in a minimally conscious state, in a ground breaking case.

The Law Commission’s consultation paper on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which opened on 7 July ended this week, the final report and draft Bill is expected in 2016 with any changes being introduced in 2017 or later.
The DoLS have been criticised since they were introduced for being overly complex and excessively bureaucratic. A House of Lords Select Committee published a detailed report in March 2014 concluding that the DoLS were ‘not fit for purpose’ and recommended that they be replaced.

A domestic servant who worked in the UK for four and a half years, 18 hours per day, for just 11p per hour has been awarded nearly £183,773.53 for the shortfall in National Minimum Wage and is expected to be awarded further substantial compensation at a further hearing in November 2015.

A recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union could have substantial implications for employees with no fixed base for time spent travelling between their homes and customer premises, for which they may not previously have been paid.

A recent case in the Employment Tribunal highlights the importance of respecting the boundaries of social media and the workplace.

A decision was made by the Local Government Ombudsman to recommend an award £135,617.02 to a disabled man (Mr X) and his mother (Ms Y). This case involved a man in his thirties who has severe learning disabilities, autism, and asphasia, who lived in Cornwall between 2008 and 2012.
The award was made by the Local Government Ombudsman, who investigate complaints about the services and actions of councils and certain other bodies. If there has been fault, the Ombudsman considers whether it has caused an injustice and if it has, they may suggest a remedy. In this case the remedy suggested for the injustice was a payment of over £135,000 in backdated payments from Cornwall Council to the complainant.

This applies to people who are deprived of their liberty at home (or any place other than a hospital or care home) and the cases of Re X (Deprivation of Liberty) (2014) EWCOP 25, (2014) MHLO 86 and Re X (Deprivation of Liberty) (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 37, (2014) MHLO 98.

The current ‘Re: X Procedure’ to be used in the Court of Protection enables a streamlined procedure where Local Authorities and others can seek authorisation from the Court of Protection of a person’s deprivation of liberty. This often leads to a Court decision on paper, with no oral hearing, and without the person concerned being a party to the proceedings.

This has now been thrown into question by the Court of Appeal who have indicated that the person deprived of their liberty, should always be a party to the proceedings when the matter relates to his or her possible deprivation of liberty.

New Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) case law in which Benjamin Conroy and Rosie Williams of Conroys Solicitors represented the First Respondent. The Court of Protection considered what amounts to a deprivation of liberty when the person is living in their own home. The case has highlighted the need for better guidance for Local Authorities.