A successful judicial review of a council’s approach to funding respite The Administrative Court held that Newport City Council was in breach of its duties under the Social Services and Well‑being (Wales) Act 2014 and the Codes of Practice in the way it sought to meet BNF’s respite care needs through direct payments tied to […]
BNF (by his litigation friend BRX) v Newport City Council Read More »
[2024] EWHC 2515 (KB) (4 October 2024) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2515.html FACTS: Ms Mercer, the defendant to this action for possession in the ordinary civil court, is wheelchair dependent, requires support with her personal care and medication, and also has diagnoses of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. She has lived in residential accommodation for almost
Decision Date: 22 May 2024 Summary: The Council was found at fault for the assessment process of Blue Badge applications, by dint of the conduct of a private company acting as its delegate. The assessor had failed to follow good practice as set out in government guidance, as the applicant was not given any opportunity
Decision Date: 15 May 2024 Summary: A mother complained about the way Staffordshire approached reviewing her daughter’s care with a suggested cut, and respite entitlement. Direct payments were paid at the wrong rate, for years. After the mother complained, the council raised removing the permission for family members to provide paid care and suggested another
Decision date: 19 May 2024 Summary: The LGSCO investigated a complaint made in relation to the support provided to an adult, after the adult’s mother and main carer passed away. It found that the Council had failed to follow the Best Interests decision-making process in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and make a
Overview of relevant sections S18 sets out who is owed a duty. The duty to meet needs INCLUDES It does NOT include people whose eligible needs are being met by a carer willingly and ably, nor The duty arises after any eligible needs have been identified, and no signed-off plan is needed as such to
Care Planning under the Care Act Read More »
This was an application without notice by the local authority against, in the main, DL who is the son of the other two defendants (RL and ML). Mr and Mrs L are an elderly couple who live with their son in a home owned by Mr L. Mrs L was physically disabled and in receipt
A Local Authority v DL, RL and ML [2010] EWHC 2675 (Fam) Read More »
Every word counts here. The care a person is supposed to have funded in a care plan does not depend on their contribution. A person’s charges are calculated on the basis of 2 sets of means testing rules (one for care at home, and one for care in a care home). The maximum amount can
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
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