Latest news with #GovanLawCentre
Glasgow Times
2 days ago
- Glasgow Times
Homeless Glasgow teenager put in hostel dorm 'full of men'
The woman, who we are not naming, said she was so 'frightened' by the thought of sleeping there, she had to leave. It is understood she was put in the hostel with mixed sex dorms as there were no available hotel vacancies due to events taking place in the city. The Glasgow Times has highlighted the plight of women trying to secure suitable emergency accommodation, and the lack of female only hotel and B&B space in the city. READ NEXT:Brave woman shares experience of Glasgow homeless hotel READ NEXT:'Women are at risk': Calls for single sex emergency spaces in Glasgow (Image: Newsquest) The 19-year-old woman was homeless and had been relying on friends letting her stay over before she went to the council to ask for help. She was given a bed in a hostel but when she entered the room, she was shocked. Speaking to the Glasgow Times, she said: 'I was so frightened. I have been through grooming and have been sexually assaulted before. 'I didn't know what to do. I asked my friend to phone to get me out. 'I was told they couldn't move me out and couldn't move me to a room on my own.' The frightened teenager wrestled with the dilemma of having nowhere to go but knowing she couldn't stay in the dorm. She said: 'I went out the front and sat outside crying. 'People were staring at me, so I went back in and sat on the bed. The room was empty now, apart from one man. 'I couldn't stay there, so I got my things together and ran. 'I can't believe they put a 19-year-old woman in there with men. 'I was told they were full everywhere else.' READ NEXT: Belfast service hailed as model for Glasgow homeless women The council has apologised for any distress and has reviewed the case. For around a week, she had to rely on friends willing to put her up for a night here and there and had to travel as far as Greenock and East Kilbride. She said: 'I have no money to my name' and added friends had been helping with food. The young woman also has a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), learning difficulties, and anxiety and depression. With the help of Govan Law Centre, she has since been moved to a single room in a hotel. A spokesperson for Govan Law Centre, said: 'The woman described the fear she experienced entering the hostel accommodation. 'Not only was she placed in mixed-sex accommodation, she was advised that she would require to share a mixed-bed dormitory. 'She advised that she went to the room she was allocated and it was 'full of men' and she felt 'terrified' by the experience. She describes being offered a top bunk bed to sleep on. 'She asked to switch to a single room and this request was refused. In the end, she had no choice but to leave the temporary accommodation that night. 'This heavily impacted our client's mental health, given her experiences of trauma, and required her to seek help from others in order to avoid rough sleeping that night. 'It is deeply concerning that the local authority did not appear to have any safeguarding measures in place or undertake any risk assessment regarding the placement and the potential harm this could have caused our, already vulnerable client.' A spokesperson for Glasgow City Council said: 'The council faces extreme challenges in relation to demand for emergency accommodation for homelessness households and as soon as we were aware of the unsuitability of the accommodation, alternative accommodation was arranged. "This case has been reviewed to ensure appropriate future safeguards are in place. We are very sorry for any distress this has caused.'
Glasgow Times
07-07-2025
- Glasgow Times
Legal threats to council in Glasgow over homelessness
Details of the number of cases over a three-month period showed more than 700 threats of legal action. The most by far were submitted by solicitors working with charity, Homeless Project Scotland. READ NEXT:Calton residents hit out at minister's comments over drug needles The charity is currently involved in a planning wrangle with the council over its night shelter in Glassford Street. It has been told that it has no planning permission to operate the premises as a shelter for people overnight and must close. When people come to the shelter the charity tries to get them into accommodation. The charity says without it these people would be left on the streets. Working with Ross Harper Solicitors, it has been using the threat of Judicial Review to force action to get people accommodated. The council said often cases are resolved before they get to court. Other legal representatives have used the same redress for people. The recent figures obtained by Homeless Project Scotland under Freedom of Information, and shared with the Glasgow Times, showed the charity with the solicitors has submitted more than others. READ NEXT:Drugs minister said consumption room is not causing more crime or needles Legal charity Govan Law Centre and Shelter Scotland have also use the Judicial Review process for clients. It asked Glasgow City Council for details of Judicial Review notifications or threats. The FOI reply stated: 'The number of Judicial Review threats the Council has received in the 12 weeks prior to 9th June 2025 were as follows: Ross Harper Solicitors acting in partnership with Homeless Project Scotland – 424. Govan Law Centre – 205. Shelter Scotland – 131. Legal Services Agency – 4. The council stated: 'All the Judicial Review threats were submitted by email and the subject matter for all the Judicial Review threats was homelessness. 'These totals include duplicate Judicial Review threats for the same cases as well as Judicial Review threats for cases which were already resolved.' Colin McInnes, chair of Homeless Project Scotland, said: 'The law is there to be used to protect vulnerable people and the council's responsibilities on homelessness are clear. 'We will seek to ensure the council is held to account and will use legal means to get people the accommodation they are legally entitled to.' A spokesperson for Glasgow City Council, said: 'On a weekly basis – sometimes daily – the council receives notification of potential judicial reviews. 'The majority of cases do not even make it to court. This is because we either don't have a responsibility for the person/s involved or they already have accommodation in Glasgow or elsewhere. 'In situations where we do have a responsibility, it is usual for accommodation to be arranged before it gets to court. I 'In many cases, efforts to secure that accommodation will have been ongoing before notice of potential judicial review is received. 'We obviously try and accommodate everyone who presents as homeless. We resort to the use of hotel and B&B accommodation to meet immediate need. 'In cases where we can't accommodate, we explore all options available to them and remain in touch in order that we can offer accommodation as soon as we are able.'
STV News
13-06-2025
- Business
- STV News
Couple lose legal challenge over cuts to winter fuel payment
A North Lanarkshire couple who challenged a decision to scrap the winter fuel payment for pensioners have lost their bid to sue the UK and Scottish governments. The challenge was brought by Florence and Peter Fanning, from Coatbridge, who were being represented by former SNP MP Joanna Cherry and the Govan Law Centre. They took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh in March, alleging that both governments failed to adequately consult with those of pension age and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes. In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel-related payment was devolved to Scottish ministers who proposed a new benefit – the pension age winter heating payment (PAWHP) – causing an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government. Scottish ministers proposed the payment would be universal, and not means-tested. After Labour swept to power at Westminster in July 2024, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the winter fuel payment would no longer be available to those not in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits, resulting in a reduction to the block grant estimated to be around £160m. The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to the PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions, claiming neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. On Friday, it was confirmed the pair had lost their legal battle following the decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session. A spokesperson for Govan Law Centre said: 'While our clients have lost their case at first instance, we have no doubt that this litigation has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. 'We hope the Scottish Government will now follow suit and restore the Scottish pension age winter heating payment in full for people such as our clients. 'It is important to appreciate that this challenge was always one of process; the speed of the decision and the fact that it was made allegedly without any equality impact assessment (see repeated public utterances by various UK Government ministers). 'Even had the petitioners won, the most the Court could have done would have been to order each Government to go back to the drawing board to reconsider the cuts made to the winter fuel payment, following the correct processes in law. 'The fact that they have already reconsidered, vindicates our clients' decision to bring this litigation. 'We are particularly pleased that the court found for the petitioners on the issue of standing against the UK Government and dismissed the argument that to enable the challenge to proceed against them was to ignore the existence of the devolution settlement.' The court heard Scottish ministers considered they had no option but to replicate the decision of the UK Government with regards to PAWHP. The Fannings, who received the WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, claimed neither government had considered the Equality Act 2010 and had both 'failed to consult' with pensioners. They sought to quash the decisions of both governments, and sought a finding they both acted in a way which was 'irrational and unreasonable'. The Fannings also sought a finding that both decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, Judge Lady Hood rejected all six requests. In her decision, published on Friday, Lady Hood found neither government had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and neither government was under a duty to consult. She also held the decisions were neither 'irrational nor unreasonable' and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998, and she ruled they were 'in pursuit of a legitimate aim'. In a written judgment, Lady Hood said: 'In this case, the decision which each respondent faced as to whether the payment of WFP, or PAWHP, should be made on a universal or means-tested basis fell within the field of socioeconomic policy. 'It was a policy decision involving questions of the allocation of resources, and practical and political assessments that this court would not be well-placed to judge. 'That the policy decisions could result in hardship for those falling on one side of a brightline rule is not enough to render it irrational in the legal sense.' Lady Hood added: 'The petitioners asserted that elderly people suffering from disabilities rendering them vulnerable to cold temperatures constituted a group in our society which has suffered considerable discrimination in the past… However mere assertion is not enough to bring a group within that definition, and the petitioners did not sufficiently demonstrate to the court that this cohort of the population did do so.' The petition was refused on all grounds. Lady Hood's judgment concluded: 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The National
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
Coatbridge couple lose court case to restore Winter Fuel Payment
Pensioners Peter and Flo Fanning, from Coatbridge, took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, claiming that both sets of decision-makers failed to consult pensioners and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes. The Court of Session ruled to refuse the petition on Friday morning. Peter and Flo lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating costs. READ MORE: Plans approved to turn Robert Burns-linked estate into whisky distillery Peter, 73, receives a state and a work pension, while Flo, 72, receives just a state pension. They do not meet the criteria to qualify for pension credits and decided to take action in a bid to have the benefit restored for all who previously received it. Peter said he was going to court to "give a voice" to other pensioners. The couple both suffer from medical conditions that are made worse by the cold. During the winter, they say they have to use their household heating daily to combat symptoms. Peter and Flo Fanning (Image: PA) They also claimed the decision to end the £300 benefit for thousands of people across the country last year was "irrational" and breached their human rights. Lady Hood found that neither of the governments had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and neither was under a duty to consult. In her judgment, she stated: 'This case is not a verdict, nor even an expression of opinion, on the merits or demerits of government policy as debated in the public arena. 'The purpose of the case was to test a much "narrower question", namely whether the policy decisions made by the governments were unlawful, and if so liable to be struck down by the courts. READ MORE: Reform UK claim to have 11,000 Scottish members in challenge to Labour 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas-in-law and refuse the petition. The question of the appropriate remedies, had I found in the petitioners' favour therefore does not arise.' Late Alba Party leader Alex Salmond was instrumental in putting the Fannings in touch with the Govan Law Centre ahead of the action being raised. A spokesperson from Govan Law Centre, who represented the couple, said they still felt the action had been merited and worthwhile. They added: "While our clients have lost their case at first instance, we have no doubt that this litigation has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. "We hope that Holyrood will now follow suit and restore the Winter Fuel Payment in full for people such as our clients." Westminster abandoned plans to withdraw the payments from all but the poorest pensioners after the scheme drew widespread criticism. The Scottish Government had already launched its own Winter Fuel Payment in response to the original cut, which included extra support for those less well-off, but also a universal payment which is unaffected by income.
Glasgow Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Peter and Flo Fanning hoped to restore winter fuel payments
Pensioners Peter and Flo Fanning took their case to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, claiming that both sets of decision-makers failed to consult pensioners and did not release an equality impact assessment on the changes. The Court of Session ruled to refuse the petition on Friday morning. Peter and Flo lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating costs. Peter, 73, receives a state and a work pension, while Flo, 72, receives just a state pension. They do not meet the criteria to qualify for pension credits and decided to take action in a bid to have the benefit restored for all who previously received it. Peter said he was going to court to "give a voice" to other pensioners. The couple both suffer from medical conditions that are made worse by the cold. During the winter, they say they have to use their household heating daily to combat symptoms. Peter and Flo Fanning (Image: PA) They also claimed the decision to end the £300 benefit for thousands of people across the country last year was "irrational" and breached their human rights. READ NEXT: Two Coatbridge pensioners 'intend to sue' Scottish Government Lady Hood found that neither of the governments had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and neither was under a duty to consult. In her judgment, she stated: 'This case is not a verdict, nor even an expression of opinion, on the merits or demerits of government policy as debated in the public arena. 'The purpose of the case was to test a much "narrower question", namely whether the policy decisions made by the governments were unlawful, and if so liable to be struck down by the courts. 'I shall therefore repel the petitioners' first to eighth pleas-in-law and refuse the petition. The question of the appropriate remedies, had I found in the petitioners' favour therefore does not arise.' Late Alba Party leader Alex Salmond was instrumental in putting the Fannings in touch with the Govan Law Centre ahead of the action being raised. A spokesperson from Govan Law Centre, who represented the couple, said they still felt the action had been merited and worthwhile. They added: "While our clients have lost their case at first instance, we have no doubt that this litigation has been influential in securing the partial U-turn made by the Scottish Government last November and the major policy U-turn confirmed by the UK Government earlier this week. "We hope that Holyrood will now follow suit and restore the winter fuel payment in full for people such as our clients." Westminster abandoned plans to withdraw the payments from all but the poorest pensioners after the scheme drew widespread criticism. The Scottish Government had already launched its own winter fuel benefit in response to the original cut, which included extra support for those less well-off, but also a universal payment which is unaffected by income.
