How Charging Policies Are Affecting Disabled People

By Anne Pridmore, Disability Labour Executive Committee Member

Disability Living Allowance started in 1992 it consists of two components the mobility allowance and the daily living part. The mobility component is £62.55 and the daily living part is £89.60 at the higher rate. In 2013 DLA was changed to Personal Independence Payment commonly known as PIP.

In 2019 SCOPE the National Charity did a report on the extra cost of being a disabled person. The findings of this report calculated this to be £583 per month. I am only using this report to try to illustrate that PIP was never meant to pay for care. It is also important to say PIP has never kept up with inflation.

In 2014 the Independent Living Fund closed and for the first two years central government awarded Local Authorities extra monies to use for the extra burden they had placed on them for social care. However the money was never ring fenced thus allowing Local Authorities to plug holes in their budgets due to yearly cuts.

Since the demise of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) and cuts to Local Authorities some English councils are quietly increasing charges which in effect they are clawing back from welfare payments and leaving some working-age adults with little more than £3 a day to spend.

People facing these charges fear they will be unable to heat their homes and feed themselves. One single man living with bipolar disorder said he may have to put his dog down because he will be unable to afford to look after it.

The High Court has ruled that Norfolk County Council breached the rights of a woman – known as SH – by discriminating against her when it changed its care charging policy.

Like many other councils, Norfolk has been making up for cuts in government funding by reducing the minimum income guarantee (MIG) that SH and others must be left to live on after any charges – and by taking into account the daily living part of their personal independence payment, when deciding how much to charge them for their care and support. Let me remind you once again that this non means tested benefit was never meant to pay for care but help towards the extra costs incurred by being disabled.

But the council’s new policy meant that SH and other disabled people in her situation with high support needs had a higher proportion of their income taken by the council than disabled people receiving lower benefits and those who were able to do paid work.

The court heard that SH, who relies on benefits for her income and has Down’s syndrome and physical impairments and health conditions, has never been able to earn money and there was “no prospect of her doing so in the foreseeable future”.

The new council policy meant that the charges she would have had to pay the council from her benefits – for day services, respite care and a personal assistant – would have risen from £16.88 per week to £50.53 per week.

This argument rested on two points. The young woman could not work and was therefore entirely reliant on benefits, unlike someone with lower support needs who might be able to work and whose earned income (according to the Regulations) cannot be taken into account when assessing how much they should be charged. In addition, her assessable income was higher because she qualified for the enhanced rate of PIP daily living allowance. 

The Council argued that the charging policy was not discriminatory as it applied to everyone.  The judge said that it was because the impact was different for people who were severely disabled. “The way the Charging Policy is constructed means that, because her needs as a severely disabled person are higher than the needs of a less severely disabled person, the assessable proportion of her income is higher than theirs”.

Whilst SH won the case the charges already paid are not being refunded.

Inclusion London said the ruling showed that the current system and the changes made by local authorities had had “a disproportionately negative impact on disabled people with the highest support needs”.

An Inclusion London spokesperson said: “This group of disabled people find it extremely difficult to get a job and maximise their income”.

“Moreover, they usually need social care support to meet very basic needs.

“They are also the least likely and able to challenge local authority charging decisions. Consequently, they are often pushed into deeper poverty.”

Inclusion London warned that DPOs across the country were reporting that their local authorities were implementing similar policies.

The Independent Living Strategy Group recently carried out a study of local authority charges for social care, exploring in particular whether and to what extent the practice of charging is undermining people’s wellbeing, the primary purpose of social care services as set out in the Care Act 2014. They examined some key features of the way local authorities implement charges and gathered evidence on the impact of charges on disabled people.

Charging disabled people for their care and support is driving many of them into debt and forcing them to cut their spending on food or heating, according to new research by a network of disabled people’s organisations and their allies.

The study found that 4 in 10 of those responding to a survey had experienced a substantial increase in charges over the last couple of years. Nearly half (43%) had had to cut back on their spending on food to pay for care and 2/5 of respondents (40%) said they had had to cut back on heating costs to pay for care and support.

The study concludes that charging for the support disabled people need to go about their daily lives is “unfair, counterproductive and undermines the primary purpose of the care and support system”.

The effect of charging, it says, is often to “drive disabled people into care poverty, and to create confusion, stress and complexity in an already overly burdened bureaucratic system” through what is effectively “an unhelpful and unnecessary tax on disability and old age”.

In Control’s helpline which offers information and advice to individuals, family members and organisation’s has seen a record number of enquiries relating to charging policies.

The stark facts of the funding crisis facing social care are that some councils “could run out of cash”  and it would require £2.1bn to keep provision at the current levels (allowing for increase in demand) by 2023/4 and £10bn to restore provision to what was available in 2010/11.  

Hammersmith and Fulham are the only Local Authority that do not charge.

To close let me remind you once again Personal Independence Payment is not means tested and consists of two parts – the mobility part and the daily living part.  From a personal perspective my mobility part all goes to Motability to pay for my car and the daily living part is no longer enough to pay my charges which now have to be subsidised from my Pension Tax Credit.

Anne Pridmore
Executive Committee Member


  • Ann Fahey

    If you consider the fact that disabled women are four times more likely to suffer partner/carer abuse usually over a much longer period of time and suffering greater injury as a result and yet in London and many other cities, there is NOT one completely wheelchair friendly refuge the situation for abused, disabled women is dire. Over 60% of referrals for refuge are declined every single day due to lack of space! The situation for abused, disabled women, of whom I am one, is truly a crises. We absolutely MUST take a good, hard look at ourselves as the party of the people and recognise these women, and childrens,desperate situation.

  • Julia Brosnan

    I have a huge bll and being bullied and deprived of care because I simply have no monies to pay care costs. I’m on uc some old sickness benefits and high rate pip.everything I pay out comes to more than I have coming in.
    They want receipts and reasons for everything which without either any support… at present or proper support I’m struggling to put together.
    I’m heavily disabled and extremely ill with many syndromes too. Can’t even access fluids let alone anything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *