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
First of all, they CAN do this – cost effectiveness is a lawful consideration to inform the council’s decision as to what to offer. But they have to go through hoops in the Care Act, like finding somewhere that’s actually suitable, with a vacancy that DOES cost less for a proper package of care, with
No. Existing commissioning relationships are not determinative for choice of accommodation rights, subject to the ordinary rules of top ups.Commissioning policy, and a care home’s being in a contractual relationship with a local authority, is specifically not relevant to the choice of accommodation and top ups and as such, cannot be relevant for respite arrangements
We think it is hard, conceptually, to articulate why being cared for in a more expensive setting than one that charges the commissioner the average or going rate for that type and level of care is a NEED, rather than a want. We do not think that the ‘lifestyle choice’ footing for preferring a poser
Facts of the case SH travelled to the UK in 2012 having fled trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. She was granted refugee status in 2014. She applied to WF as homeless in September 2014. WF accepted the main housing duty and after was eventually provided with permanent accommodation in Ilford in May 2016.
R on the application of SH v Waltham Forest LB Read More »
Immigration – dispersal – article 8 – human rights – NASS TB, a 22 year old Jamaican had arrived in the UK at the age of 10. She had lived in London for 11 years, initially with her mother, but had been taken into foster care for a period, due to the poor care
Tawana Blackwood v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 98 Admin Read More »
The appellant local housing authority (Lewisham) appealed against the decision that it was not reasonable for the respondent (S) to accept certain accommodation offered to her as a homeless person. S had two small children and had separated from their father (F). After the birth of the second child S had asked Lewisham to re-house
Slater v Lewisham London Borough Council (2006) [2006] EWCA Civ 394 Read More »
Homelessness – bed and breakfast accommodation – conditions – human rights The claimant, O, had lived at hotel accommodation paid for in part by the local authority and was required to sign an agreement that if he was not going to stay at the hotel he would contact the respondent in advance to explain
Orejudos v Royal Borough of Kensington (22 October 2003) (CA) Read More »
Section 21 National Assistance Act 1948 – accommodation – extent of duty A local authority was under a duty to provide accommodation on a continuing basis once an applicant’s needs had fulfilled the criteria contained in s21(1)(a) National Assistance Act 1948. However, a local authority could treat that duty as discharged if an applicant unreasonably
Kensington and Chelsea LBC, ex p Kujtim [1999] 4 All ER 161 (CA) Read More »