Refusal to make direct payments to man with electricity allergy unlawful: judge

A High Court judge has ruled that Cardiff Council unlawfully refused to make direct payments to a man who says he is allergic to electricity.

Mr Justice Singh said the council had misdirected itself in law as to the applicability of health and safety legislation to the claimant's home as a place of work for personal assistants.

Peter Lloyd lives in a tent in the garden of an uninhabitable house and has electromagnetic hypersensitivity,.

The court held that he was entitled to direct payments to employ a helper and ordered the council to pay £12,000 in costs.

Quashing the council's decision, the judge said electromagnetic hypersensitivity was not a recognised condition in the UK.

He added it was "not a matter for the court to say what the decision would have been if the authority went about its decision correctly".

Mr Lloyd lives has refused alternative accommodation and a portable toilet, the court heard. He urinates in plastic bottles and defecates in bed pans lined with black bin liners, and when council workers went to collect Mr Lloyd's waste in May, they found 90 litres of urine and 40 bags of faeces.

Representing Mr Lloyd, solicitor Christian Howells said: "Where he lives has to be adapted because the symptoms are very real to him."

He described the situation as "chicken and egg" - Mr Lloyd wants the money to pay for help to improve his day-to-day life but the council felt he was not in a position to be given the funds.

Rebecca Stickler, for the council, said: "The housing department has offered housing in a field and various properties and he has refused them all.

"It can't possibly be the case that a local authority should be compelled to use the public purse to pay money to someone who they know cannot manage that payment."

Susan Elsmore, Cabinet member for social care, health and wellbeing at Cardiff, said: “The council’s role as a social services authority is to ensure that individuals have the opportunity to benefit from an appropriate assessment of their needs, and any services that may be necessary to meet them.

“The council maintains that it has acted in keeping with its responsibilities, and in relation to this case that it has acted in good faith.

“We note that of the three grounds brought by the claimant, the first was dismissed and the second was withdrawn. In relation to the third, the council is satisfied that the judgment is fair. Indeed, the court directed that the council pay only 50% of the claimant’s assessed legal costs.

“The council wishes to point out that at no time has it claimed that the individual was not capable of managing money.”

Mark Smulian