Articles & Updates

The Lancashire Evening Post recently reported the controversial statements of Preston City Councillor Carl Crompton, which suggested that parents are benefiting financially from their children’s disabilities.

During a debate over a planned property extension, Councillor Crompton stated that “People are moving into the countryside with disabled children and building big extensions to their properties... In a few years, if anything happens to the child, they’ve got a big property worth three quarters of a million pounds”.

Councillor Crompton subsequently told the Evening Post that he has no problem with extensions to help disabled children, but was concerned they were making properties unaffordable.

The Evening Post reported the story of Fergus Singleton and his wife Christine, who were granted planning permission to extend their home to provide more living space for their severely disabled son James. James, who is eight years old, suffers from cerebral palsy, with the effect that he is fed through tubes into his stomach, requires oxygen at night and requires 24 hour care. His dad Fergus commented in response to Councillor Crompton’s statements: “It suggests he doesn’t really understand the plight of disabled people who are looked after… You would have to see all the equipment to understand how difficult it is to look after [James].”

James’s injuries were the result of clinical negligence around the time of his birth. We represented the Singleton family in bringing a claim on James’s behalf. If a person has been seriously injured they will often need adaptations in their home and may need their home to be extended, in order to maximise their quality of life. Where these adaptations are required due to the negligence, we can include such costs in their claim. Such adaptations may include items such as a through floor lift, a disabled bathroom, additional storage, hoists, accommodation for carers and improved access to the property such as a ramp.

These claims are brought so that children such as James can lead as normal a life as possible. Normal life includes the ability to participate in family life, to have family holidays and to undertake activities and pastimes like other children. Large sums of compensation are necessary because the needs of the injured person are so significant. Each item of the compensation is the subject of detailed scrutiny by the defendant’s lawyers and settlements are reached on the basis of what a court’s assessment of the claimant’s reasonable needs would be.

Whether the money for adaptation of property comes from compensation or from a disability grant, as with the other family featured in the article, is immaterial. These families are not looking to make a quick buck, as Councillor Crompton’s original comments implied, but are doing what is best for the disabled person so that life can be as normal as possible. As someone who works with such families frequently, these comments, particularly the implication that parents are looking to make money on property rather than doing what is best for their child, are particularly hurtful to the devoted parents who dedicate much of their lives to looking after their children. It appears that Councillor Crompton voted in favour of the two planning applications referred to so it seems that he can see that such developments are encouraged under the planning laws. Nevertheless, for his original comments Councillor Crompton owes the families of disabled children an apology. 

To arrange a free discussion with a disability rights solicitor contact us on 0800 0384 384.