Legal action to fight Kirklees Council care home privatisation
Campaigners have argued that while the decision was stated to have been made on a financial basis, there remained a lack of evidence to support this.Rebecca Chapman, the specialist public law and human rights lawyer representing the campaigners, said: "Local authority-run care homes provide vital care and support to a number of people, particularly those living with dementia."Many of those affected by the planned business transfer of Claremont House and Castle Grange have voiced their anger and disappointment at how they feel the council has acted throughout the process."We've heard first-hand accounts from families who say the decision will have a significant impact on their loved ones."
'Upset and distressed'
Ms Chapman said lawyers had previously written to the authority outlining their points but it had still decided to go ahead with privatisation.She added: "We've therefore now applied for a judicial review."Adrian Pygott said he was worried the disruption caused by privatisation would have "grave consequences" for his mother, 90-year-old Brenda Hughes, who has been cared for at Castle Grange for seven years.He said: "My mother has high emotional needs and can become upset and distressed at the slightest change in her routine. She also has a range of complex physical needs."The care provided by the staff at Castle Grange is exemplary and I'm greatly concerned at the thought of this being taken away from her or, even worse, her having to move homes."The latest development comes after campaigners previously fought off a plan in 2024 to close the homes as part of efforts to make almost £47m in budget savings.After that, councillors made the decision to transfer them to private providers but this was called in for review by eight opposition councillors.However, at a meeting in February, the council re-affirmed the decision to transfer.In response to the legal action, the council said throughout the process it had "prioritised the quality of care for residents".It added: "The decision is now subject to legal proceedings and it would be inappropriate to comment further, or explore alternative options, until we know the outcome of that process."
Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
a day ago
- BBC News
Stoke Lodge campaigner pays Cotham School £85k in legal fees
A campaigner who fought for community access to a playing field has paid more than £85,000 in legal bills to the school that leases it. Cotham School in Bristol put up a 6ft high (2m) fence around Stoke Lodge playing field in 2019, which it said was for safeguarding reasons and due to out-of-control dogs and dog We Love Stoke Lodge member Kathy Welham, and Bristol City Council which leases the site to the school, wanted the local community to "go on sharing the land".Following multiple legal actions, the High Court ruled in June that the playing field did not have to be shared and later ordered Mrs Welham and the council pay the school's legal fees. In a statement, Mrs Welham thanked the local community for its "unwavering and generous support"."We are, as always, standing together and standing by our commitment and obligations. Recent events have only strengthened the community's determination to protect shared use of this precious green space for future generations," she added. The school was granted a 125 year lease to the field in 2011 due to lack of space at its inner city site three miles council had fought alongside Ms Welham after in 2023 it voted to give the field 'town green' status to make it into a shared following the high court ruling, Mrs Welham and her supporters have now paid the full £85,203, while the council was ordered to pay legal bills of £9,467. Mrs Welham said the Village Green application was made with "the objective of ensuring that all parties, including the school, could go on sharing the land as they have done for decades".But she added she hopes the money paid will "mitigate any detriment to Cotham School pupils" due to the legal actions that were paid for out of the school's reserves. In a statement following the decision on legal bills, Cotham School said: "We welcome the recovery of public funds that were necessarily expended in protecting the school's playing field."We Love Stoke Lodge said it now intends to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the recent High Court decision and that it has until mid-September to do City Council has previously declined to comment on the legal bills but said it would be complying with the court order.
BBC News
2 days ago
- BBC News
Covid-19: Sir Michael McBride denies he thought coronavirus 'won't happen here'
The chief medical officer has rejected claims that he felt the devastating path coronavirus had wreaked through care homes in Italy at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 would not occur in Northern Michael McBride has been speaking at the UK Covid-19 told the inquiry that measures were being put in place at the time in conjunction with the UK government, its emergency Cobra committee, scientific advisory group Sage and all relevant bodies in Northern inquiry is currently examining adult and residential care as part of its scrutiny of how the response to the pandemic was handled. Counsel to the inquiry, Jacqueline Carey, asked Sir Michael about evidence given to the hearing on Wednesday from the former commissioner for older people, Eddie said Mr Lynch had stated that the view of the chief medical officer and the chief social worker on the situation in Italy - where elderly people were dying in care homes - was "that won't happen here"."Mr Lynch told us yesterday that his general impression in March was that there was an air of unreality, that it wouldn't happen in Northern Ireland," she if he had believed that what was happening in Italy was "not going to reach the shores of Northern Ireland", Sir Michael said: "I fail to understand those comments if I'm really honest."He said he was fully aware of the seriousness of the evolving situation and had met with all the relevant bodies to ensure there was a robust approach to Northern Ireland's preparations."I really don't understand any sense of unreality or lack of urgency," he said."Within days we had introduced, on the 16th March, social distancing, working from home, advising people not to go to pubs and restaurants, so I really don't understand that reflection." When Counsel to the Inquiry asked Sir Michael why care home workers had not been among priority front line workers who were being tested in March 2020, he said that was because Northern Ireland didn't have enough tests."A good example is that on 2 March, the then minister provided a statement to the Executive indicating that we had carried out 150 tests, and one had been positive," Sir Michael said. "That was not what was happening - it did not reflect the reality of how the pandemic was spreading or how rapidly it was spreading."It reflects the fact that in many respects we were running to catch up," added Sir told the inquiry that Northern Ireland's early surge plans lacked "specificity" and there were gaps around infection prevention in the care sector and how the care home sector would engage with hospitals."What I needed to see were overarching plans between the care home and the acute sector across the region, that regional coordination needed to be much more robust." "While there were several people with wide-ranging knowledge of the social care sector, there was no-one within the Department of Health who had specialist knowledge of social care," he said.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Australia warned it could face legal action over ‘wrongful' fossil fuel actions after landmark climate ruling from world's top court
Australia could face international legal action over its fossil fuel production and failure to rapidly cut emissions, Vanuatu's climate minister says, after a potentially watershed declaration by the world's top court. An International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion published in the Hague on Wednesday found countries had a legal obligation to take measures to prevent climate change and aim to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, and that high-emitting countries that failed to act could be liable to pay restitution to low-emitting countries. The case was instigated by law students in Vanuatu and referred to the ICJ by a decision of the UN General Assembly in 2023 by 130 countries, including Australia. The opinion was hailed as an historic moment by Pacific island representatives, climate campaigners and legal academics. Vanuatu said it planned to push for a UN resolution to support its implementation. Australia had joined other significant emitters, including the US and China, in arguing in submissions to the court that countries' obligations were limited to complying with the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The ICJ, represented by a panel of 15 judges, disagreed. It found all countries had binding obligations to act, not just under UN climate agreements, but under international human rights law, the law of the sea and customary international law. It said countries could be found liable if they failed to address fossil fuel production, consumption, subsidies and exploration licences. Sign up: Clear Air newsletter Vanuatu's climate change minister, Ralph Regenvanu, said it would give Pacific island nations 'much greater leverage' at climate talks and in dealing with partner countries, such as Australia. He told the ABC's Radio National it would take time to fully examine the 500-page opinion, but it suggested litigation was 'definitely' an option. 'According to the advisory the ICJ handed down today, Australia is committing internationally wrongful acts as it is sponsoring and subsidising fossil fuel production and excessive emissions,' Regenvanu said. 'Australia is one of the major contributors to fossil fuel production. It's the third largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. It's a major contributor to emissions … It needs to align itself with the advisory opinion and cease this conduct that is contributing to emissions and start making reparations.' Dean Bialek, an international lawyer and former lead climate negotiator for island nations, said the opinion was 'unusually robust' and would have 'hugely significant' ramifications for Australia. Bialek said the court's confirmation of the primacy of the goal of limiting heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels meant Australia should be setting an emissions reduction target for 2035 in the 'mid to high 70s' – that is, at least 75% below 2005 levels – when it made that decision later this year. He said the opinion made it 'inescapable' that the Albanese government needed to include a 'climate trigger' as it reformed national environment laws, and was a further demonstration that it needed to 'intensify its diplomatic legwork' to host the Cop31 UN climate summit in partnership with the Pacific next year. Retta Berryman, a senior lawyer at Environmental Justice Australia, agreed the opinion would help measure whether the federal government's upcoming climate commitments were ambitious enough, and said it was a 'clear statement of the evolving legal standards around climate change'. 'We are likely to continue to see significant climate litigation in Australia against governments and companies,' she said. Australian National University associate professor Siobhan McDonnell, a lawyer and climate advisor to Vanuatu, said the opinion was 'historic', stating as it did that 'all states have international human rights obligations, including the rights to ensure life, health and the rights to a clean and safe environment'. The Australian Greens leader, Larissa Waters, said the ruling made it clear that 'every one of Labor's new coal or gas approvals risks Australia being legally liable for the climate consequences'. 'This should be a turning point. Fossil fuel profits cannot override a climate safe future,' she said. Wesley Morgan, a research associate with the Institute for Climate Risk & Response at the University of New South Wales, said Australia had dozens of coal and gas developments up for approval and the government must 'heed the message from the Hague' when considering them. 'The days of impunity for the fossil fuel industry are coming to an end,' he said. A federal government spokesperson said Australia was proud to have joined the Pacific in co-sponsoring this Vanuatu-led initiative, and recognised that climate change was 'one of the greatest existential threats to all humanity and that it's having a significant effect on our region'. They noted that the Coalition was debating scrapping its commitment to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, but Labor was committed to working with the Pacific to 'strengthen global climate action'. 'We will continue to turn around their decade of denial and delay on climate by embedding serious climate targets in law and making the changes necessary to achieve them,' the spokesperson said. 'We will now carefully consider the court's opinion.'
