|
Issue 3 (May/June 2008)
Legal Mind
Issue 3 (May/June 2008)
Welcome to Issue 3 of Mind's enewsletter Legal Mind which comes to you at a time of change here in Mind’s Legal Unit. Emma Jones having left us for pastures new, Mind is in the process of appointing a new Head of Legal. Changes are planned to the legal advice service that Mind provides and these will be announced in Issue 4 of Legal Mind. In the meantime, may I draw your attention to a couple of items in this issue’s Notice Board, namely Mind week and Mind Annual Conference 2008.
Best wishes
Keith Dawson
Lawyer, Mind Legal Unit
Mind
15-19 Broadway
London E15 4BQ
T: 020 8519 2122
e: legalmind@mind.org.uk
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please email legalmind@mind.org.uk with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Please feel free to forward Legal Mind to any friends or colleagues, reminding them that they can subscribe in their own right at www.mind.org.uk/Information/Legal/legalmindsubs.
News
Mental Health Act update
1. Place of safety amendment
Section 44 of the Mental Health Act 2007 came into force on 30 April 2008. This amends sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to allow a person to be taken from one place of safety to one or more other places of safety during the 72 hour maximum overall period during which she or he may be detained under these sections. Guidance has been published for NHS bodies and social services authorities on the effect of the amendment and is available at www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_084351.
Mental Health Act 2007 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008 (SI 2008/800), which brought the amendment into force, can be viewed at www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080800_en_1.
2. Advocacy in Wales
Issue 2 of Legal Mind reported the Government’s intention to delay implementation of Independent Mental Health Act advocacy in England. Our colleagues in Mind Cymru report that Edwina Hart, Minister for Health and Social Services for Wales, has made a commitment that the advocacy provisions will be implemented without delay in October 2008. A sum of £600,000 has been set aside to assist with implementation. For further details, contact Ruth Coombs, Manager for Influence and Change at Mind Cymru (email r.coombs@mind.org.uk, tel. 0208 215 2575)
Mental Capacity Act research guidance
Section 32 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires consultation with a non paid and non professional carer when it is proposed that a person lacking capacity to consent be included in an approved research project. Section 32(3) states that where such a carer cannot be identified, someone else must be nominated who is prepared to be consulted and who has no connection with the project. This nomination must be made in accordance with guidance issued by the ‘appropriate authority’ and that guidance was issued in February. It can be downloaded at www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_083131.
Human rights
1. Government pledge on human rights of private care home residents
Issue 1 of Legal Mind reported on YL (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (FC) v Birmingham City Council and others, [2007] UKHL 27, in which the House of Lords held that a private care home was not a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The government has now said that the HRA will be amended to protect people who have been placed by local authorities in privately run residential and nursing homes. The amendment is to be introduced by the Health and Social Care Bill currently going though Parliament, and will be one of three new measures to combat the abuse of older people in care homes and NHS hospitals.
2. Inquiry
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an inquiry into the state of human rights in Britain and is calling for evidence from public authorities and those who use their services to find out if people are being treated with dignity and respect. The Commission wants to draw up an accurate picture of how the Human Rights Act 1998 is working and what improvements can be made. For more information visit www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/projects/humanrightsinquiry/Pages/HumanrightsInquiry.aspx.
CPA guidance
Updated guidance has been published on the Care Programme Approach following a Department of Health (DH) consultation. According to the foreword by Louis Appleby, Refocusing The Care Programme Approach "emphasises the need for a focus on delivering person-centred mental health care and also repeats that crisis, contingency and risk management are an integral part of assessment and planning processes". From October 2008, the term Care Programme Approach (or CPA) will only be used when referring to the system for providing mental health services to people who would currently be described as being on ‘enhanced’ CPA. It will no longer be used for people who receive secondary mental health services but have less complex needs and the documentation required for such individuals will be less formalised. The new guidance can be downloaded from the DH website at www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_083647. A booklet and summary leaflet about the Care Programme Approach has been produced for service users and are both available at www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/DH_083650.
MHRT changes
1. Relocation to Leicester
The final phase of the Mental Health Review Tribunal’s move to Leicester took place in March. The new address for the MHRT in England is: Mental Health Review Tribunal, PO BOX 8793, 5th Floor, Leicester, LE1 8BN. For more details, visit the tribunal’s "new look" website at www.mhrt.org.uk. The MHRT for Wales continues to be based at the National Assembly for Wales administrative building: Mental Health Review Tribunal, Welsh Assembly Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff. CF10 3NQ.
2. Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Later this year, the MHRT will undergo a number of changes. One of the aims of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is a new framework for tribunals that brings their various jurisdictions together. The Act provides for a new two tier system which will operate for most existing tribunals, including the MHRT. The MHRT will be renamed the ‘Mental Health Review Panel’ and this will be the First Tier Tribunal dealing with the initial matter. An individual appealing against the panel’s decision will then go, in most cases, to the Upper Tribunal rather than using the Judicial Review procedure. It is also expected that the procedural rules relating to tribunals will be amended so that there is one set of generic rules for all tribunals. The two tier tribunal system will be divided into several chambers, into which existing tribunals will be placed. The MHRT will form part of the Health, Educational and Social Care First Tier Chamber. Further information about the changes is available at www.tribunals.gov.uk.
Guidance to RMOs on leave for restricted patients
In March, the Mental Health Unit (MHU) at the Ministry of Justice issued guidance on leave of absence for patients subject to restrictions under the Mental Health Act 1983. The guidance can be downloaded at http://noms.justice.gov.uk/news-publications-events/publications/guidance/Leave_Guidance_for_RMOs_08?view=Binary.
The MHU’s role in the transfer of prisoners to hospital and their remission to prison were the focus of the third MHU bulletin, published in March and available at http://noms.justice.gov.uk/news-publications-events/publications/newsletters/MHU_Bulletin_0308?view=Binary.
Spotlight on complaints
The Healthcare Commission published "Spotlight on complaints: A report on second-stage complaints about the NHS in England", on 7 April 2008. This is the second report setting out the Commission’s work on reviewing complaints made by patients or their representatives about NHS services and covers the period from August 2006 to July 2007. Among the key issues complained about were a lack of basic nursing care, poor communications, overly brisk GP consultations and a lack of help for mental health service users. The report, which urges NHS trusts to learn from patients’ complaints and improve complaints handling, can be downloaded at www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_documents/5632_HC_V18a.pdf.
In February, the government unveiled a new unified complaints system for health and social care in England aimed at making it easier for people to complain. This will involve a local resolution stage followed by, in the case of unresolved complaints, a Health or Local Government Ombudsman investigation. The system is set out in 'Making Experiences Count: The proposed new arrangements for handling health and social care complaints', which is available to download from the Department of Health website: www.dh.gov.uk. Mind has expressed concern that the proposals will not address serious complaints on mental health wards. It has called for ‘special measures’ to be put in place such as supporting people with mental health problems to provide good evidence, allowing people to report incidents to an independent third party and offering patients a safe place to tell their story. Mind is also concerned about the reduced role of the Healthcare Commission and whether the ombudsmen will have sufficient resources to manage more complaints.
Independent Safeguarding Authority to begin October 2009
It has been announced that the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) will begin operating in October 2009. A fees structure has also been set out, with individuals who wish to undertake paid employment while engaging with vulnerable groups, making a one-off payment covering two components. These consist of an ISA registration fee of £28 and a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) enhanced disclosure (currently £36) which provides employers with details of information held on police records about potential staff members. There will be no cost for volunteers.
MHRA ruling on drug safety
In March, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) published a report following conclusion of its investigation into GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and its antidepressant drug, Seroxat. The investigation focused on whether GSK had failed to inform the MHRA in a timely manner, of information it had on the safety of Seroxat in under 18’s. Despite its concern "that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did", the MHRA says that Government Legal Prosecutors decided that a criminal prosecution should not be brought into alleged breaches of drug safety legislation. According to the MHRA, "[t]he key factor behind this was that the law regarding companies’ obligations to disclose safety-related information was not – at the time in question – sufficiently clear in applying to the use of a drug outside its licence (in this case, use in children when it was licensed only for adults)." The Government has responded by promising to tighten the law so that drug companies will be legally required to disclose results from clinical trials. Details of the MHRA investigation and report are available at
www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/Medicines/Medicinesregulatorynews/CON014153. Mind’s press release, which welcomed the Government announcement on tightening the law, is available at www.mind.org.uk/News+policy+and+campaigns/Press/mhra06-03-08.htm.
Employment and support allowance regulations
The Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 were laid before Parliament on 27 March 2008. Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) will replace the Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Income Support (IS) currently paid to people whose ability to work is limited by disability or ill health. ESA will replace IB and IS for new claimants from 27 October 2008 and for existing IB and IS claimants at a later date. The ESA Regulations set out the entitlement conditions to ESA and can be found at: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080794_en_1.
Self-harm in jail
A report by the Howard League for Penal Reform says that rates of self harming in prison rose rapidly between the years 2003 and 2007 and that the increase is most dramatic among women. The Howard League found that there were 16,393 incidents of self harm in prisons in England and Wales in 2003 and 22,459 incidents in 2007. This represents a 37 per cent increase and compares with a rise in the prison population of 9.5 per cent during the same period. Prison by prison figures for the period 2003 to 2007 are available on the Howard League’s website at www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Registered_self_injury_incidents.pdf.
Broadmoor not main focus of investigation
The Healthcare Commission has launched an investigation into the services provided by the West London Mental Health NHS Trust. Although the trust is responsible for high security services at Broadmoor Hospital, the Commission says these are not the main focus of the investigation. It says the investigation follows concerns about how the trust handles serious incidents, including incidents involving self-harm. The Commission will look at how the trust responded to incidents and "near misses" from April 2005 to the present and examine whether the trust takes appropriate action to address the root causes of incidents in order to prevent similar events reoccurring and improve services.
Henderson closes
The Henderson hospital in Surrey was closed on 23 April (see Issue 2 of Legal Mind). South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust says the closure is temporary and the result of a fall in the number of residents to an unsafe level. Solicitors for people using the Henderson have said that currently there is no legal action that can overturn the temporary closure decision but that they are closely monitoring the arrangements for the residents who will be moving out.
Other news
Cases
Cases are in date order with the most recent first. Ombudsmen decisions are listed after those of the courts. It will not always be possible to provide summaries of cases listed in Legal Mind. We are grateful to BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) for allowing us to link to full case reports.
KC and another v City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department and another
[2008] EWCA Civ 198
Court of Appeal (Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ, and Hallett LJ)
19 March 2008
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/198.html
This was an appeal by K and N, British nationals of Bangladeshi origin, against, among other things, a declaration that their son (IC) lacked the capacity to marry and that the "marriage", while valid in Muslim law and in Bangladesh civil law, was not valid under English law.
IC has autism and his intellectual functioning is severely impaired. The local authority that had supported IC since he was a child became concerned about the question of marriage and applied to the High Court for a declaration on his capacity to marry. However, it transpired that IC had been married in a Muslim ceremony over the telephone, his ‘bride’ being in Bangladesh while he remained in England.
The Court of Appeal said there was nothing in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to prevent the High Court judge from exercising jurisdiction in this matter. It upheld that court’s decision to apply the dual domicile rule in declaring that the marriage was invalid under English law and to refuse recognition of the marriage on public policy grounds. It did uphold part of the appeal, accepting K and N’s claim that under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the marriage was merely violable rather than void. However, this simply resulted in the court varying the wording of the declaration issued by the High Court – "that the marriage … , valid according to the law of Bangladesh, is not recognised as a valid marriage in this jurisdiction".
Another ‘vulnerable adult’ judgment that may be of interest was provided by the High Court on 3 April in the case of London Borough of Ealing v KS and LU and SK (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and MHAS and SR, [2008] EWHC 636 (Fam) - www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2008/636.html. Here, Ealing sought declarations in respect of a woman’s capacity to marry, to decide her residence, to decide upon contact with family members, and to consent to sexual relations. It also sought a declaration that it was in the best interests of SK that she be operated upon under general anaesthetic to remove an ovarian cyst. The case demonstrates the court’s ‘balance sheet’ approach to deciding which course of action is in a person’s best interests.
S v Jacqueline Floyd and the Equality and Human Rights Commission
[2008] EWCA Civ 201
Court of Appeal (Mummery LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ, Munby J)
18 March 2008
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/201.html
This case concerned an assured tenant (S) who had fallen into rent arrears. The arrears afforded mandatory grounds for possession and the landlord (F) gave S notice that she intended to apply for a possession order on this, and other, grounds. S had told the court he was withholding the rent on the basis of F's "illegitimate and excessive demand" for increased rent and that he would suffer exceptional hardship if an order was granted due to issues of "ill-health, disability and old age". A housing adviser representing S had asked that the proceedings be adjourned due to concerns about S's mental capacity. However, the judge had refused and held that since S had admitted the arrears, he had no defence to which his mental capacity related.
Among the submissions S made to the Court of Appeal were that the judge had been unreasonable in concluding that an adjournment to investigate S's mental capacity was not warranted. He also argued that judge had been wrong in not adjourning to investigate whether the reason for the possession proceedings related to S's disability. However, the court dismissed the appeal. It held that the judge had been entitled not to grant an adjournment on the ground of mental incapacity. There had been insufficient material before the judge to enable her to exercise her discretion to grant an adjournment on this ground and S had shown a very good understanding of the issues and participated fully and intelligently in the hearing. The Court of Appeal also held that a finding that the reason for the proceedings related to S's disability was impossible. S had stated that he suspended payment of rent because of F's attempts at a rent increase. In circumstances such as this, where the disabled tenant had admitted that he had no defence to a claim for admitted rent arrears, a finding that the reason for the possession proceedings related to S's disability was impossible. It was not arguable in the circumstances of this case that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Act provided a defence to the claim for possession.
Secretary of State for Justice v Daniel Rayner
[2008] EWCA Civ 176
Court of Appeal (Ward LJ, Keene LJ, Black J)
12 March 2008
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/176.html
This case concerned the compatibility of Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) provisions dealing with referral of a recalled patient to a mental health review tribunal (MHRT), with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Secretary of State for Justice ("the Secretary") appealed against a decision on the interpretation of section 75(1) MHA and Article 5(4) ECHR while Mr Rayner (R) cross-appealed against the decision.
R had been diagnosed as having "schizophrenia" and had been detained under a hospital order subject to restrictions, under sections 37 and 41 MHA. Following R’s conditional discharge under section 73, the Secretary recalled him to hospital under section 42(3) in June 2005. The Secretary failed to refer R’s case to the MHRT within one month, as required by section 75(1) and, following a postponed hearing, R’s conditional discharge was directed by the MHRT at a hearing in October 2005. R had brought legal proceedings and claimed that the maximum of one month allowed under section 75(1) MHA for the making of a reference by the Secretary to the MHRT following recall was incompatible with the requirement of a speedy decision contained in Article 5(4) ECHR. The judge had refused R’s request for a declaration of incompatibility.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s refusal to make a declaration and confirmed that the section 75 MHA provisions were compatible with the ECHR. Specifically, the section 75(1)(b) provision preventing a recalled patient making an application to the MHRT for six months, did not breach Article 5(4). This was because the section 75(1)(a) duty on the Secretary to refer the case to the MHRT amounted to an automatic review procedure; any failure to do so on the Secretary’s part was subject to judicial review. The Court also held that the Secretary was generally not entitled to take the statutory maximum of one month before making a reference to the MHRT; he had to act with reasonable dispatch having regard to all the circumstances to satisfy the requirements of the ECHR.
B v Cygnet Healthcare and another
[2008] All ER (D) 35 (Mar)
Administrative Court (King J)
4 March 2008
This was an application by B, a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), for a writ of habeas corpus. B argued that his detention was unlawful as the approved social worker (ASW) who assessed him had not met the requirement in section 11 MHA, for proper consultation with his nearest relative.
B was diagnosed as having "paranoid schizophrenia" and had been detained under the MHA on previous occasions. In January 2008, while B was detained, an ASW undertook a formal assessment for the purpose of his continued detention under section 3. The ASW approached B's father as nearest relative but because of his difficulties with English, the father told the ASW to talk to B's sister. The ASW’s evidence was that he then explained to the sister what was involved, asked her to inform her father, and requested that he be telephoned if the father had any objections. Since there was no contact, the ASW made an application for B’s continued detention under section 3.
The court held that the applicant's detention was unlawful and a writ of habeas corpus would follow. It stated that as a matter of principle, there was no obligation for the nearest relative of a mental health patient to expressly lodge an objection to an assessment for the purposes of an ASW to make an application under section 3 MHA; if an intermediary had been informed about the steps being taken to effect detention, the consultation requirements of section 11 could be satisfied. However, the burden to show that proper consultation had been undertaken had to fall upon the relevant ASW and on the evidence of this case, the ASW had not discharged that burden, despite the intermediary (B’s sister) being informed of the section 3 process.
Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) v IBC Vehicles Limited
[2008] UKHL 13
HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury)
27 February 2008
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080227a/corr-1.htm
This case concerned an employee who was injured in an industrial accident and took his own life some six years later. Mr Corr had been struck on the head by a machine during the course of his work with IBC as a maintenance engineer. He had required reconstructive surgery but remained disfigured and experienced post traumatic stress and depression. Some six years after the accident, he took his own life. His widow (C) brought a claim under section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA), in respect of the financial loss attributable to the suicide. The High Court had held that despite being responsible for the initial physical injuries, IBC were not liable to pay compensation for the suicide. The Court of Appeal had reversed that decision and IBC now appealed.
The House of Lords upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. The suicide was a direct result of the depression and this was, in turn, a direct and foreseeable consequence of the accident for which IBC was liable. IBC’s breach of duty had caused psychological and physical injury and Mr Corr had acted in a way which he would not have done but for the injury. His suicide could not be said to fall outside the scope of the duty which IBC owed him. Depression, possibly very severe, was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty and it was not incumbent on C to show that suicide itself was foreseeable.
Re MM (an Adult) [2007]
[2007] EWHC 2689 (Fam)
Family Division (Munby J)
16 November 2007
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2007/2689.html
This concerned a woman (MM) who has a moderate learning disability, poor cognitive functioning, and a mental health diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenia". The court had to consider MM’s capacity to consent to sexual relations and, at the same time, her capacity to decide upon matters of contact and residence. These matters also concerned KM, MM’s long term partner and the person with whom MM was having a sexual relationship.
A local authority had placed MM in supported accommodation but heard that KM was proposing to take her to stay with his brother out of the area. KM had been diagnosed as having a "psychopathic personality disorder" and was understood to abuse alcohol. There was evidence suggesting that KM had been violent to MM in the past, used MM’s welfare benefits to buy alcohol, and encouraged MM to disengage with psychiatric services. The local authority wished to protect MM's health (physical and mental) by limiting her unsupervised contact with KM and making this subject to a number of conditions. It applied for declarations that MM lacked capacity to decide where she should reside, with whom she should associate, and whether she should have unsupervised contact with KM. The authority also sought a declaration that it was contrary to MM’s best interests to be removed from the supported accommodation unit. The Official Solicitor (OS) felt the authority's proposals would effectively deny MM a sexual relationship with KM and, as such, amounted to a disproportionate interference with her right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The parties agreed that MM had capacity to have a sexual relationship. However, the local authority was not proposing to take any positive steps to facilitate the sexual relationship.
The Court held that capacity to consent to sexual relations is issue specific as opposed to person (or partner) specific. Thus, the question to be asked was "can MM consent to the act of sexual intercourse?" as opposed to "does she understand the consequences of having sex with a particular person such as KM?". The Court agreed with the OS. It said that a public body wishing to interfere in the sexual life of a person who has the requisite capacity faced "a heavy burden" and that "particularly serious reasons" needed to exist to prevent a breach of Article 8 ECHR. In MM’s case, such reasons had not been demonstrated and if it was placing controls and restrictions on other aspects of MM's life, the authority had to take positive steps to enable her to continue her sexual relationship with KM (and avoid any continuing breach of Article 8). The court ordered that the local authority draw up plans for MM's future living arrangements which showed proper respect for her private life and her right to continue to have a sexual relationship with KM.
Ombudsmen decision: The Vale of Glamorgan Council (Ref: 200601152)
Report published 29 November 2007
There are no significant decisions to report from the Health and Local Government ombudsmen in England. The Public Service Ombudsman in Wales made a decision to make reports on adult social care and health cases under Section 21 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 and not give publicity to them. However, the ombudsman’s office kindly furnished Mind with reports on adult social care and health cases from the past few months. The case summarised below, from November 2007, involves reimbursement of care home fees for care provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA).
In 1995, Mr M had been detained in hospital under section 3 MHA and then entered a residential care home under his subsequent section 117 care plan. Between 14 July 1995 and his death on 3 September 1997, Mr M paid £9,085 in fees to South Glamorgan County Council and, following local government reorganisation in Wales, £17,074 to The Vale of Glamorgan Council. His daughter (Mrs S) complained that he should not have been required to pay these fees and that the council had delayed in dealing with her request for reimbursement since she first complained to it in April 2005.
Among the reasons given by the council for the delay in dealing with Mrs S’s reimbursement claim were: that the start of Mr M’s care dated back to 1995 (before The Vale of Glamorgan Council was in existence), that Mr M’s Social Services file had been destroyed in or around September 2002, that new financial controls had been issued in June 2006 requiring all outstanding financial matters be reviewed by the Director of Community Services, and the sickness leave of key personnel and changes in staff. The council also said that this was the first such claim it had to process and it took some time to establish appropriate mechanisms to deal with it.
The council eventually accepted that it had a duty to reimburse the care fees for the whole period of Mr M’s residential care and agreed to pay Mrs S £26,159 plus interest. It paid her £26,159 on 19 February 2007 and wrote saying it was still in discussion with the ombudsman regarding the payment of interest. While discussions continued between the council and ombudsman on whether the County Court or Bank of England interest rate should be used, the council sent Mrs S a cheque for £11,504.78, representing net simple interest from July 1995 to February 2007, calculated at the Bank of England base rate. A covering letter stated that £2,876 had been deducted from the gross payment of £14,380.97 for income tax purposes.
After further discussions with the ombudsman, the council agreed in October 2007 that the interest payment to Mrs S should be based on the Bank of England base rate applied as compound interest. In view of the delay in making the interest payment, the council agreed to pay additional interest on the outstanding sum from 20 February 2007 onwards. When the ombudsman pointed out that the interest payment to Mrs S formed part of a compensation payment, the council then agreed to refund to Mrs S the income tax deduction.
The ombudsman considered the delay of almost two years between Mrs S’s claim for reimbursement and the payment in February 2007 to be evidence of maladministration and upheld Mrs S’s complaint. However, he considered the application of compound interest at the Bank of England base rate to be a fair and reasonable approach. He also considered that the payment of additional interest from 20 February until the final payment of the outstanding interest due fairly compensated Mrs S for the delay in determining the amount of interest due to her.
Notice board
Mind week 2008 - In the red: debt and mental health
The theme of Mind week 2008, running from 10 to 17 May, is poverty, debt and mental health. Mind’s research shows that debt is not just a financial problem but can have a serious impact on a person's mental health in terms of anxiety and stress, depression, self-harm and suicidal thoughts, as well as adding to wider social exclusion problems. Mind will publish a new campaign report In the red, debt and mental health during Mind week and launch a campaign, running until Autumn 2008, seeking to raise awareness of these issues and the need for more effective support in relation to debt management for people with mental health problems. For more details, go to www.mind.org.uk/mindweek.
In the red: poverty, debt and mental health conference, 16-17 June 2008, Brunel University, Middlesex
The Mind annual conference will be looking at the links between mental health and financial difficulty, with speakers including representatives from the Citizens Advice Bureau, Royal College of Psychiatry, Crisis and the Monday Advice Liaison Group. The deadline for the early registration fee is Friday 2 May, so book now to take advantage of discounted rates. Full programme details and how to book can be found at www.mind.org.uk/Information/Conference+and+training/In+the+red.htm or call the Conference and Training Unit on 0844 448 4450.
Coming soon: the May 2008 update of Legal rights and mental health: the Mind Manual
A new edition of Mind's legal rights manual will be published in mid-May. Mind's Legal Unit has been working over recent months to ensure all sections of the manual reflect the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 2007 that are coming into force, as well as changes to law relating to clinical negligence and discrimination. If you already subscribe you should receive your update automatically in a couple of weeks. If you don't and would like to know more about this comprehensive resource please visit Mind’s online shop at http://www.mind.org.uk/osb/itemdetails.cfm/ID/121 where you can order a manual and also set up subscriptions for future six-monthly updates.
Legal flow-chart posters
Earlier this year, Mind published two legal posters, designed to help those working within the legal system explain legal scenarios to clients with mental health problems. One covers mental health review tribunals, and the other consent to treatment. Each poster is A2 sized (4 x A4), landscape.
You can order them online at: www.mind.org.uk/osb/showitem.cfm/Category/168, or from Mind Publications, telephone: 0844 448 4448, email: publications@mind.org.uk
Advice services from Liberty
Liberty (also known as The National Council for Civil Liberties) is one of the UK’s leading civil liberties and human rights organisations. It works to promote human rights and protect civil liberties through a combination of test case litigation, lobbying, campaigning and the provision of free advice. Liberty run three advice services to help people to better understand the Human Rights Act 1998 and its implications. They are:
- Advice and information to members of the public – call 0845 123 2307;
- Advice and information for voluntary and community groups to help them advise their service users – call 0845 122 8621; and
- Specialist support service for lawyers and advisers with LSC contracts – call 0808 808 4546.
Queries can also be submitted online at Liberty’s legal information website at www.yourrights.org.uk. This website provides legal information on a range of civil liberties and human rights issues. If you wish to find out more about Liberty, visit www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk.
About Legal Mind
Legal Mind is an enewsletter providing information about developments in mental health law and policy. Legal Mind is produced by Mind’s Legal Unit, a small team of lawyers providing advice on mental health and related law to people experiencing mental distress, families, carers, advocates and other professionals. It is available free of charge but is only circulated to people who wish to receive it. Anyone wishing to subscribe can do so at www.mind.org.uk/Information/Legal/legalmindsubs.
Legal Mind is produced mainly for people involved in the delivery of mental health services, mental health advocates and lawyers. Anyone can subscribe but please remember that Legal Mind is no substitute for a statement of the law or for legal advice.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please email legalmind@mind.org.ukwith the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
|