Choice is an overall aspiration in the Act, but a formal right to choose a preferred provider for certain sorts of service, has been included in the legislation. This choice right arises only in defined situations in which a person with a personal budget sorted out is entitled to say to the council funding the […]
Choice of Accommodation under the Care Act Read More »
Does she have a home to go to, still? I.e. accommodation where she has a right to occupy? It doesn’t have to be HERS – it could be the home of a relative, or the opportunity to have a tenancy in another building in which care could be provided, in theory. If so, ask for
No, not in our view – NOT AT THE LEVEL OF POLICY – ie a stance applied to everyone. It is one of the great unresolved questions of the era, however, because no council has ever actually allowed itself to be judicially reviewed for imposing this stance on a specific person, with a) the mental
R (Perry Clarke) v London Borough of Sutton [2015] Keywords: Assessment, withdrawal of services, medical evidence Perry Clarke, a 27-year-old with severe epilepsy, mental health and behavioural difficulties, had been helped by Enfield to move to a specialist supported living setting in Sutton, becoming a tenant there. By 2013, he had become “ordinarily resident” in
R (Perry Clarke) v London Borough of Sutton [2015] Read More »
This case involved a dispute between two local authorities over who had responsibility under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the Act’) for the aftercare of a person (‘SQ’). SQ had lived in Wiltshire until 1995, and was almost continuously in contact with local authority psychiatric services from the age of 18. In
This report concerned a complaint by the son of a female patient (S) detained under s.3 Mental Health Act 1983, that York City Council (York) was unable to guarantee the provision and funding of the aftercare needed by S. As a result of York’s actions, S’s family found a place for her in a private
Ombudsman’s investigation – York City Council – 04/B/01280 (31/1/06) Read More »
A displaced relative could not, under s66 MHA 1983, make an application to a Mental Health Review Tribunal for the discharge of the patient. That power could only be exercised by the local authority as the replacement nearest relative specified in the s29 order. However, under s30 MHA 1983, a displaced nearest relative may apply
Merrill v County of Herefordshire District Council [1999] (Unreported) (CA) Read More »
The decision by a Mental Health Trust to move the residents of a home, in circumstances where there was no evidence of a promise of a home for life, nor a legitimate expectation that they would have a home for life there, was neither unreasonable nor irrational, nor a breach of art 8 of the