RW v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
[2023] EWHC 1449 (Admin)
Michael Sherratt, R (on the application of) v Bolton Council
27 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 699 (Admin)
High Court
A man challenged how the council calculated his contribution to his care costs. The council made a mistake by not including certain disability-related expenses. The council agreed to fix its mistake and pay the man's legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Michael Sherratt, represented by his mother, challenged Bolton Council's financial assessment for his care package.
- •The assessment included his disability benefits, but excluded claimed disability-related expenses (DRE).
- •Disputed DRE included gym membership, PA petrol/parking, specific food, and PA lunches.
- •Bolton Council's initial decisions rejected these expenses as not directly related to Sherratt's care plan.
- •The claim was resolved by consent order before a substantive hearing.
- •The council agreed to reconsider the financial assessment, reimburse wrongly excluded amounts, and review its policies.
Legal Principles
Assessment of Disability Related Expenditure (DRE) must consider any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability, not solely those in the care plan.
Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Annex C, §§40 and 41; Bolton Council's Charging Policy
Inclusion of transport costs in PIP does not automatically exclude them from DRE.
Case law interpretation and statutory guidance
Costs generally follow the event in judicial review, but this can be departed from based on specific circumstances.
Court's discretion on costs
Outcomes
Bolton Council's financial assessment was withdrawn and will be reconsidered.
The Council's interpretation of DRE was too restrictive and inconsistent with the statutory guidance and its own policy.
Bolton Council will reimburse any sums wrongly excluded as DRE, with interest.
The Council's actions were unlawful, requiring redress for the Claimant.
Claimant awarded full costs.
The claim's success and the Council's failure to offer a robust defence justified this outcome. The alternative remedy argument was deemed unsuitable.
Similar Cases
YVR (R on the application of) v Birmingham City Council
[2024] EWHC 701 (Admin)
LHG, R (on the application of) v Bury Council
[2023] EWHC 3162 (Admin)
CVN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2023] EWHC 865 (Admin)
MS, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council
[2024] EWHC 693 (Admin)