Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Discrimination, (07 December 2020, Your ref:, Our ref: 17 016 346, (Please…
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mr Ellis has asked me to write to you again, following your email of 30 November, sent on your behalf by Disability Rights UK.
-
In that spirt the offer of a meeting as set out in my email of 10 November remains available to you. In addition he would like to offer you the support of a named member of LGSCO staff to act as ‘navigator’ for your service complaint and then for further non-investigation issues at LGSCO, including your GDPR Right to Rectification request. This would be Jackie York, who can be contacted at j.york@lgo.org.uk. For your service complaint, she would be able to take down the details of your concerns about Ms Flegg’s conduct and explain our service complaint procedure to you. As you would have written down your service complaint and Mr Ellis would see it before a meeting, a one hour meeting should be sufficient time. Mr Ellis has not agreed to have a meeting with any other person making a service complaint.
Mr Ellis has also asked me to explain the situation in relation to Mrs Sykes and Ms Flegg. We have not previously seen the email from Adam Hawksbee to you, sent on 11 July 2017. This followed a telephone conversation with Mrs Sykes. It is clear from the email that Mrs Sykes explained to Mr Hawksbee that she would not be involved in the investigation of your complaint about Bradford Council or in any way influence the outcome, as that responsibility is delegated to Mr Williams overseen by Ms Flegg. This is our normal procedure. The email does not say that she would have no involvement in any aspect of your contact with LGSCO. Mrs Sykes could not have made any such undertaking, given her role, as all investigations are undertaken by the team she manages and she is also Ms Flegg’s line manager. As such, it is reasonable that Mrs Sykes attends any meeting about Ms Flegg’s conduct.
Ms Flegg remains Mr Williams’ line manager and will continue to oversee the case, as she would with any other complaint he is responsible for. Any action on reasonable adjustments in relation to further investigations remains on hold until Mr Ellis has responded to your service complaint about Ms Flegg. The prioritisation of Mr Williams’ work is a matter for him and Ms Flegg and will be done in line with our normal procedures.
Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with a meeting so I can organise a suitable date and time.
-
-
-
-
NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.
-
-
-
-
Introductory Paragraph: Talk about yourself and explain who you are and what you are offering. What are you trying to persuade them about? Place an argument before them. Use facts to back your request.
Second and Third Paragraph: Your argument requires a valid basis, and this is what will be presented in these paragraphs. Again, you may need facts and statistics to validate your stance. Convince the reader how he will benefit by investing time/resources in your offer. By using a valid basis or reason, you will persuade your reader to agree with you and take up your offer. You may write about three to four paragraphs, but your letter should not exceed one page.
Closing Paragraph: In this paragraph, you will close your argument, primarily by restating it, so that it is convincing enough for the reader to agree in the positive. Offer a time limit within which a response is expected and guide the reader toward the necessary course of action.
-
-
-
-
For your service complaint, she would be able to take down the details of your concerns about Ms Flegg’s conduct and explain our service complaint procedure to you.
-
-
-
-
As you would have written down your service complaint and Mr Ellis would see it before a meeting, a one hour meeting should be sufficient time. Mr Ellis has not agreed to have a meeting with any other person making a service complaint.
unlikely Mr Eliis is required to hear a complaint where malpractice has been through hands of three Ombudmsn
-
-
-
The common threshold for all three requirements is ‘substantial disadvantage’. Substantial disadvantage is disadvantage which is more than minor or trivial.68”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
-
-
PSED
“(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;”
“take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it’ gives statutory effect to the important principle that substantive equality necessarily involves accommodating and catering to different needs differently. ”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
-
-
The prioritisation of Mr Williams’ work is a matter for him and Ms Flegg and will be done in line with our normal procedures.
-
-
-
-
“the general duty requires public authorities to have an adequate evidence base for their decision-making, and engagement can assist with developing that evidence base. Engaging with stakeholders and employees will help public authorities to base their policies on evidence, rather than assumptions.”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
The LGSCO had an adequate evidence base for decision-making, based on direct engagement with PA - which actively overlooked.
-
-
-
Problems -
“The express provision rendering it lawful to treat disabled persons more favourably than others”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
-
-
-
-
-
“in the absence of any other explanation, that a person contravened the provision in question,
the court or tribunal must hold that the contravention occurred, unless the alleged discriminator shows that there was no contravention."
-
“in the absence of any other explanation, that Mr Ellis contravened the PSED Ms Ramsey will be forced to conclude that the contravention occurred, unless the Mr Ellis shows that there was no contravention.
-
-
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
“The duty applies to ‘public authorities’ specified in Schedule 19 to the Act”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
“communication between the bearers of the duties and those affected,
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
“It is clear also that the ‘functions’ to which the duty applies are not merely functions which involve the design or formulation of policy; functions can also involve decisions made in individual cases.59”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
“The duty applies to ‘public authorities’ specified in Schedule 19 to the Act”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
“Alleged breaches of the new general duty, as is the case at present, are challengeable by way of public law judicial review proceedings. Similarly, the specific duties continue to be justiciable only at the behest of the EHRC.”???
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
illegality, procedural unfairness, and irrationality.
Also unfair - assumption severely impaired can without breaks - hear complaint = no assiatnce to provide evidence
-
It is procedurally unfair - to ofer a P unfair process and when challenge reduce the level of diversity - detrimental to person with AS/
Process enacted is procedurally unfair, legal and
-
-
“whenever a decision is taken which may have an impact on matters contained in it’.”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
A decision can be overturned on the ground of irrationality if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person, acting reasonably, could have made it. This is a very high bar to get over, and it is rare for the courts to grant judicial review on this basis.
-
“The disabled person must be disadvantaged in comparison with other persons. However, in the case of reasonable adjustments, the purpose of the comparison is to establish whether the disabled person was put at substantial disadvantage, as opposed to being less favourably treated, because of his/her disability. ”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
“key element of the range of measures intended to eliminate barriers to access and participation for disabled people. ”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
Perverse to set aside RA based on evidence obtained form PA support by natiao level Expertise - exploits the adversity of circumstance of Individuals
-
-
-
procedurally unfair, subject to bias, perverse handling of RA, contravene S20 and PSED.
“Section 27, which defines victimization, sets out a list of ‘protected acts’.93 It provides that victimization occurs where one person subjects another to a detriment because s/he believes (whether rightly or wrongly) that the person has done, or may do, a protected act.”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
-
“If there are facts from which a court could conclude that there has been an act of unlawful discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
“the respondent discharged the burden of disproving discrimination.”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
“The first type of harassment concerns unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect either of violating a person’s dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for a person.”
Excerpt From: John Wadham. “Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 2010 (Blackstone's Guides)”. Apple Books.
-
-
-