One can do this, in theory, but the more levels of scrutiny a decision has been through the less likely it is that a mistake or error of such legal significance as to constitute good grounds for a judicial review, will still exist.
Taking the CHC issue as an example, rather than the Care Act: the system for challenging a decision about ineligibility for CHC is one of so-called local resolution, followed by an independent review panel, followed by a complaint to the ICB which has maybe refused to follow the IRP’s recommendation, followed by a referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, ought to have made each level of decision a less awful one, and this is why there is a rule that alternative adequate remedies ought to be exhausted before one goes to judicial review.
The other problem is that there is a 3 month time limit for issuing judicial review proceedings which is not suspended merely because one has conscientiously tried other remedies. In most cases therefore there will be no right to bring JR proceedings against the original decision; time will generally have expired. But judicial review of the top level of the route described above, ie of the Ombudsman, would still be possible, if there was something about that decision that still amounted to a ground for judicial review of THAT decision-maker’s approach.
In the Care Act context, there is paragraph 10.86 suggesting a management look-back at what’s made agreement of the care plan impossible to achieve; there’s the Monitoring Officer route; there’s a complaint, and then the local government ombudsman. We favour using those in that order, one at a time, because any shift on the last known decision will start another 3 months running from that new position, and the Monitoring Officer can be politely told that unless he or she responds very promptly the individual in question will have no option but to resort to a Pre-Action protocol letter direct to the legal department.