Whether a person is deemed to be ordinarily resident within the geographical area of a local authority has far-reaching legal consequences for all concerned. It affects:
(a) whether or not the person is even statutorily eligible for a service (i.e. ordinary residence is a condition for most but not all accommodation provided under s21/s26 NAA 1948 and for the specific but not the general welfare services under s29 NAA, and for all services under s2 CSDPA 1970);
(b) whether or not a person is entitled to a service, as opposed to being merely eligible to ask for a service (i.e. the ordinary residence of a person can place an authority under a duty to accommodate, or to provide welfare services, as opposed to a mere powers. See >the guidance and directions in LAC 93/10;
(c) which authority is liable to pay for any services provided regardless of which did the contracting (ie the one responsible for the person will have to pay, even if the one on the spot contracts on behalf of the other authority as its agent, for the more convenient and efficient discharge of that other’s provision function towards the client)
(d) which authority is liable for funding aftercare for ex-detainees released from mental hospital (since the case of >Torfaen).
In the case of someone who is not ordinarily resident in the area, it will still be lawful to provide services, if there is some good reason to, and the person is otherwise eligible, regardless of where the person is ordinarily resident. Thus an assessment, at the very least, will still be owed to anyone who can bring themselves within the wording of the s47 assessment duty in the 1990 Act, regardless of their place of ordinary residence. This means that criteria for assessment which purport to exclude those who do not live in the area would be unlawful.