TS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney
[2023] EWHC 3063 (Admin)
P (by her litigation friend SP), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
15 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2886 (Admin)
High Court
A council didn't give a woman enough help, even though they knew she needed more. A judge said the council's plan was bad because they didn't talk enough to the woman and her family, and made the council redo their plan.
Key Facts
- •The Claimant, a 27-year-old woman with ASD, epilepsy, learning difficulties, and other conditions, requires significant support.
- •The Defendant, London Borough of Croydon, is responsible for assessing and meeting her needs under the Care Act 2014.
- •The Defendant initially assessed the Claimant's need for 96 hours of weekly support (£1200 budget) but later provided only 35 hours (£437.50).
- •The Claimant challenges the Defendant's decision as unlawful, arguing insufficient support and procedural flaws.
- •The Defendant contends that the initial 96-hour assessment was erroneous due to overlooking family support and that the 35-hour provision was lawful.
- •The case involves the interpretation and application of the Care Act 2014 and its Statutory Guidance.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a duty to promote well-being and meet the needs of eligible adults under the Care Act 2014.
Care Act 2014
The duty to meet needs under section 18 does not extend to needs met by a carer; local authorities must consider the level of care provided by carers.
Care Act 2014
Local authorities must prepare a Care and Support Plan (CSP) involving the individual and carer(s), and the personal budget must be transparent and sufficient.
Care and Support Statutory Guidance
Guidance issued under the Care Act 2014 is mandatory unless there are cogent reasons for departure.
Care Act 2014, section 78(1); R v Islington LBC ex parte Rixon [1997] 1 CCLR 119
A decision-maker must provide intelligible reasons for decisions, especially when departing from prior recommendations or assessments.
Principles of Public Law
The court can consider 'historic' breaches of the Care Act 2014.
R (CP) v North East Lincolnshire Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1614
Under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, relief may be refused if the outcome would not have been substantially different had the procedural flaw not occurred.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
The Defendant's February 2022 decision to provide 35 hours of support was quashed.
The decision lacked reasoned justification, failed to adequately consider family support, and departed significantly from the Defendant's prior assessment without explanation.
A declaration that the Defendant unlawfully failed to meet the Claimant's needs between August 2019 and February 2022 by providing only 30 instead of the agreed 35 hours of support.
The Defendant's own assessment recognized the need for 35 hours; failing to provide this constituted a breach of duty.
The Defendant's February 2022 CSP and personal budget were quashed.
The decisions were made without sufficient involvement of the Claimant and her family, breaching the Statutory Guidance.
Similar Cases
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
RW v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
[2023] EWHC 1449 (Admin)
LHG, R (on the application of) v Bury Council
[2023] EWHC 3162 (Admin)
THE KING (on the application of CVN) v LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON
[2023] EWHC 464 (Admin)