Judicial review of warden removal gains momentum
Share
A high profile solicitor is poised to front a judicial review of the removal of wardens from sheltered housing schemes.
Yvonne Hossack, of Hossacks Solicitors in Northamptonshire, has become a thorn in the side of care providers in recent years for
her widely publicised legal challenges to care service cuts and closures.
Now she wants to take on sheltered housing providers and is planning to offer her services to tenants who have lost their wardens.
Ms Hossack said there were several arguments that could be used in a judicial review, including that the move could breach tenants’ ‘legitimate expectation’ when they moved in that the service would continue to be provided.
Another argument is that the decision to take wardens offsite has been ‘legally irrational’, if the provider can be shown not to have taken into account the potential health effects on tenants.
The solicitor plans to convene a meeting over the next two weeks with Sheltered Housing UK, the lobby group set up to fight warden removal.
Rosemary Hart, head of the care group at legal firm Trowers & Hamlins, said the first hurdle in getting a judicial review off the ground would be showing that the sheltered housing provider was acting as a public body.
She said the second question would be whether the provider had gone through a reasoned decision-making process based on consultation.
Readers' comments (4)
Sheltered Housing UK | Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:35 GMT
First thank you Hossacks, where no other solicitors have come forward they have jumped into the void . There should be no doubt that that people's legitimate expectation has been bulldozed aside in this. I have cases from all over the country from people who have 'sold up', or relinquished their homes to move into Sheltered Housing ."Because it offered a Warden", and now they are trapped into that situation with no way of going back. Try that in any other walk of life and you would have a writ served upon you in days, but in this case the vulnerability (they are very often not of an age to right, but nevertheless that does not mean that they do not suffer !) of these residents has been used against them. I hope that where people's legitimate expectations have been thwarted in this manner and that they have suffered under a reduced quality of life because of it, then a legal action should include claims for personal compensation too. Not because I wish to make the residents rich, but there is nothing like a compensation claim to concentrate the minds of those it is brought against. A single action resulting in compensation being awarded will sweep through the housing provider bush radio at the speed of light and drive home to them that a contract cannot simply be changed because it is inconvenient, or costly, to them. What is surprising however, is that the ODPM now the DCLG every allowed them to do it in the first place ! Let us hope that the new TSA is somewhat better !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
alex davidson | Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:25 GMT
trying to contact Vernon J Yarker
chairman
The Sheltered Housing UK Associtation
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
J M C Mortimer | Fri, 2 Jan 2009 13:05 GMT
The CLG policy of destroying Sheltered Housing is not just morally repugnant and, I believe, in the case of our provider, in clear breach of the contractual terms of the transfer, it is also fiscally indefensible.
How can a policy that has already been a direct cause of avoidable suffering and death be pursued legally? How can a policy that throws away annual savings in excess of £1 billion according to figures published by its promoters CLG last year be continued? What object is being served by the CLG pretence that it is improving the service? Why are councils being forced to try to make a case for the policy by clandestine methods including partial "consultation" that does not even state the purpose and the results of which are not seen, let alone agreed, by the participants?
CLG must be stopped!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mrs Heather Street | Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:36 GMT
My 86 year old mum has lived in sheltered housing for the past 16 years. She is more dependant on the warden now, particulalry following a fall in the grounds in February '08 which necessitated an ambulance. However, the warden assisted scheme enables her to live independently as far as managing her flat, cooking and shopping goes, safe in the knowledge that there is someone on hand to turn to if she needs help or advice. The warden carries an awful lot of responsibility but is always cheerful and ready to help and there is a lovely community feeling amongst the residents - the younger/more able residents supporting the less able. I see my Mum 2 or 3 times a week and take her shopping, but with a 14 year old son and 18 year old daughter with mental health problems to look after I cannot give Mum the kind of support she is currently getting. I'm horrified to think that Sheltered Housing Schemes as we know then could become a thing of the passed. It would be a backward step in so many ways, taking away the peace of mind the scheme offers residents and their families as well as the independence and self-esteem of the elderly residents who are so often isolated by disabilities or circumstances.
I do hope sense will win out and investment be made in the Sheltered Housing Scheme and I'd like to see much more support the wardens in the work they do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment