Under the Equality Act, consideration is given towards a situation of ‘being disabled by association’. It’s illegal to discriminate due to association with someone with a disability. This means, that you cannot be discriminated against just because you have a disabled person to care for in your life. Otherwise, that would be considered to be ‘disabled by association’.
This part of the Equality Act has mainly been applied to work-related matters. Such as an employer refusing time-off when a person has someone disabled to care for but allowing flexibility to someone else employed who doesn’t have anyone disabled to care for.
It seems to me regarding direct payments, that ‘the may not rules’ social care apply are then rephrased as ‘cannot’ regarding paying someone for the care they do for someone living with a disabled person who has been assessed as requiring direct payments.
The ‘may not rule’ in turn is changed to a ‘cannot rule’ by professional both non-health trained and health trained individuals working for services and within health and social care. Then it is used to prevent carers who are living within the same home as someone disabled from being able to be employed and paid a wage for the care they supply.
The care which is supplied is of exactly the same nature as that supplied by carers who are paid via direct payments to do the same job. The only difference is those carers also called P.A.’s are not living in the same household as someone disabled.
There is a direct link of discrimination in progress towards someone living in the same household as someone who is disabled. In many cases, it creates the situation of being disabled by association and being denied employment directly due to association with a disabled person who lives in the same home.