[UK]Court awards disabled woman ‘aggravated’ damages for ombudsman discrimination

[AndyPR]

A county court has delivered a devastating judgment against the Local Government Ombudsman, after it discriminated against a disabled woman by failing to provide the reasonable adjustments she needed to lodge a complaint against a local authority.

The ombudsman has been ordered to pay £12,500 in damages to Jeanine Blamires to compensate her for the ordeal, following breaches of both the Equality Act and the Data Protection Act by the ombudsman.

Although the judgment is only in draft form, its conclusions are unlikely to be altered.

District judge Joanna Geddes even awarded aggravated damages against the ombudsman over the breach of the Equality Act, because she said it had defended the case in a way that “added to the injury, frustration and distress” felt by Blamires, which had “exacerbated” the symptoms of her long-term health conditions.

She also awarded aggravated damages for the Data Protection Act breach, because of the ombudsman’s “continued denial” that it had broken the law.

Blamires has told Disability News Service that she was “disgusted” and “sickened” by the ombudsman’s behaviour and that she believed it had now “lost its moral authority to adjudicate over others”.

Judge Geddes said Blamires’ husband David (pictured with his wife at a parliamentary evidence session) told the court that his wife had “found the whole process extremely distressing and has on several occasions been reduced to tears by the intransigence of the defendant in not meeting her disabled needs by making reasonable adjustments.

“This has led to a deterioration in her condition and a reduction in her ability to fulfil her role as a housewife and mother.”

The case relates to her attempt in March 2012 to help her daughter lodge a complaint through the ombudsman against North Yorkshire County Council over a housing issue.

She then complained herself about the council five months later.

Blamires, who represented herself in the legal case, had told the ombudsman – when lodging the complaint against the council – that she had severe ME and dystonia, while her husband also had ME, as well as chronic pain and dyslexia, and that they would need help to use the service.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...ravated-damages-for-ombudsman-discrimination/

Got to admit the fact that she is reported as having "severe ME" yet is able to represent herself at court is something that I personally think is unlikely, but it could well be misreported, and doesn't take away from the good news that a victory was won for reasonable adjustments.

 

[Valentijn]

I'm not sure severe ME is really acknowledged in the UK. Hence moderate often gets promoted to severe, because people can't imagine that it can get quite a bit worse.

 

[Jinny B]

Hi, folks I think the problem is you do not have a copy of the judgement and here it is I hope the link will be allowed https://blamiresvlgo.wordpress.com.

I am the lady in question, my diagnosis is Severe CFS/ME and I did this with a lot of help and a lot of understanding with regard to the reasonable adjustments I needed. I became ill in court several times, having to be removed, my husband took over but of course he then crashed afterwards. Nightmare.

You are right it would be impossible for me to do this on my own.

I really appreciate you sharing this

 

[AndyPR]

Welcome to the forums @Jinny B and congratulations on your success in the courts, I hope that you and your husband have been able to recover as best possible after all that effort.

 

[RogerBlack]

There is real disability discrimination (as defined in the Equality Act) happening against people with ME.
Systems are actively designed so that they systematically disadvantage people with ME.

I've for example, requested that instead of telephoning me, they email. The general response was as if I'd suggested I shit on their mothers.

I note that for being unable to equally access a bank counter, a disabled person was awarded 6K. (RBS vs Allen IIRC).

These are not trivial acts. These are acts of requiring of people stuff that has a real chance of disabling them for long periods. Requiring someone to show up at a distant place for an hour long interview, and not accepting 'I was, as I am on 95% of days unable to make that appointment' as a reasonable excuse is simply abuse.