Published on 12, July, 2020
Happy days quote "The Autism Act is a good piece of legislation, but I wonder how much teeth it has? I know that the Act is supposed to make the public sector aware of the needs of people with autism/aspergers, but I don't know how I could benefit from it?"
The act is a framework like any bill, it has to be tested in court to establish the teeth as you put it, that involves court test cases to set presidences of law, HAPPY DAYS V NAS, so the problem is ? who is going to enforce the act via the courts, the NAS should be the advocate, but are looking the other way, whistling nothing to do with us.
So you have a catch 22, looks good on paper, but the councils etc, will do the minimum especially under the current economical climate. Autistic people are emotional screwed so they can't challenge a court, so unless the parents or guardians challenge the situation this act will be worthless. The NAS should be grouping test cases together and being the advocate for the condition. Politically this will not happen because they are just a vehicle of the state, which has hijack the autistic community with a state treasure chest to hush some people off.
The fact this act came from a MP's private members bill, this may be a reason why, so the state can be challenged via the courts because obvious there is a vulnerable gap which is not getting filled by the NAS and other state instititions. So my question is ? Can you sue the NAS and other state institutions for neglect under the Autism Act ?
I think I understand it pritey well. I made it clear the autism act 2009 is relivent to the question of judicial reveiw. Strictly speeking when you bring a case for judicial review you are not 'suing' in the traditional sence. And judicial review is not 'created' by the Autism Act. Judicial review isn't a civil tort case. Rather the autism act creatse duties and judicial reveiew allows you to take public bodies to court for failing to meet their duties under law.
In fact judicial review cases are technicaly brought the kings name on your behalf. In a sence the goverment takes itself to court, although in practice you are prosicuting the case.
You can sue anyone for a tort (not just the goverment) but only public bodies can be subjected to judicial reveiw.
You say the Autism Act 2009 doesn't give the right to sue someone, but you're wrong.
It creates causes of action for autistic individuals, such as a local authority failing to conduct a needs assessment for an autistic person.
Please don't give misleading information if you don't understand the law.
What the autism act actually says is that the government must issue a set of rules for councils and the NHS on:
services diagnosing autistic spectrum conditions in adults
the identification of adults with autism
performing needs assessments for adults with autism
making and carrying out transition plans for autistic children why are about to reach adulthood
planing services for autistic adults
Properly training staff who provide services for autistic adults
putting someone in charge of organising these services.
If they fail to follow these rules it can be challenged in court.
And in fairness to NAS they're not legally empowered to sue people on behalf of autistic people. They have however sought to get involved in autism related lawsuits a number of times.
C & C v The Governing Body of a School:
The case where it was established you can't avoid the equality act by claiming an autistic kid was violent.
X Endowed Primary School v Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal:
An earlier case about a similar matter.
KM, R (on the application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council:
A case arguing about how much disability related benefit a council ought to pay. Spificly how the number should be calculated.
MM & DM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
A case against the government about how disabled people eligibility for disability benafits should be assed.
P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council
A case about when and how authorities must go to court to get permission to lock people up who lack mental capacity.
A v Essex County Council
A case about the right of disabled children to have an education.
So it would appear NAS will go to court for 3 things
The people who should really be going to court for autistic people and have the legal power to do so is the equality and human rights commission But they are chronically underfunded.
To quote Adrian plass. “The law is very difficult. There’s such a lot of it. Perhaps you haven’t understood. Perhaps you are a twit.”
so spicificly suing for not providing care / diagnosis?
no offence intended. So there are a number of basses upon which you could sue people. So there is the equality act. It allows you to sue for discrimination. But discrimination can be quite narrow.
Section 15 is hard to apply because it requires an unfavourable act and an act of omission only really counts if it’s something they would normally do and your disability caused them not to do.
so if an NAS or local authority service kicked out an autistic child for being disruptive because of autism you might have a case under section 15. But not for just providing poor service generally.
reasonable adjustments might apply in some limited cases. It can require the provision of auxiliary aids. You might argue that sending someone who seems to have a neurodiverse condition away for formal diagnosis is a form of auxiliary aid. But the court will probably want to be satisfied that the institution in question should have picked up on the need for a diagnosis.
the autism act itself doesn’t give you the right to sue anyone. But it does say what government bodies and people they hire are expected to do so you can challenge their decisions using a judicial review lawsuit. It’s not the same as getting compensation but it can force the government to do things or not do things.
I think we should
Been to sympathetic MP who is shocked and will try to get things sorted on Monday for me.
I have pointed out my and our experience of NAS and other complaints of similar lack of support from NAS on ASD forum
Advertising Standards Agency
autismtwo said:Scorpion, Surely they are registered as a charity and have a licence and therefore an indirect statutory duty of care or obligation of care, so to socially neglect a member would be deemed thus neglect and the person involved could seek damages or recourse for cause and effect ?
Scorpion, Surely they are registered as a charity and have a licence and therefore an indirect statutory duty of care or obligation of care, so to socially neglect a member would be deemed thus neglect and the person involved could seek damages or recourse for cause and effect ?
Not in the same way that a state instution has a duty to care.
Charities are not obliged, by law, to provide support to each and every person that asks them for help.
Only if they were to undertake a support role and then cause harm in the execution of that support would you have any grounds on which to claim damages for neglect.
Re: The OP - the NAS is a charity, not a state institution, therefore it has no statutory duty of care, therefore you can not sue for neglect.
[quote user="NAS18089"]
Really well that's okay then- I guess that they think it is a phase
I want to sue !!! Lets join forces.
see my posting on what the local authority sent to me after I applied for housing - apparently my condition is 'not of significance'
autismtwo said:Happy days quote "The Autism Act is a good piece of legislation, but I wonder how much teeth it has? I know that the Act is supposed to make the public sector aware of the needs of people with autism/aspergers, but I don't know how I could benefit from it?"The act is a framework like any bill, it has to be tested in court to establish the teeth as you put it, that involves court test cases to set presidences of law, HAPPY DAYS V NAS, so the problem is ? who is going to enforce the act via the courts, the NAS should be the advocate, but are looking the other way, whistling nothing to do with us.So you have a catch 22, looks good on paper, but the councils etc, will do the minimum especially under the current economical climate. Autistic people are emotional screwed so they can't challenge a court, so unless the parents or guardians challenge the situation this act will be worthless. The NAS should be grouping test cases together and being the advocate for the condition. Politically this will not happen because they are just a vehicle of the state, which has hijack the autistic community with a state treasure chest to hush some people off.The fact this act came from a MP's private members bill, this may be a reason why, so the state can be challenged via the courts because obvious there is a vulnerable gap which is not getting filled by the NAS and other state instititions. So my question is ? Can you sue the NAS and other state institutions for neglect under the Autism Act ?
No it isn't a perfect world