Fairness and due process in the context of care planning

I care for a disabled adult and I’ve heard social workers claim it would be more cost effective to put him in residential care. I understand the council can’t force this but are they able to stop paying or limit/reduce his care funding to indirectly leave him with no choice?

Leave a Comment / Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 5 the right to liberty, Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Charging and financial assessment, Choice of Accommodation post Care Act, Commissioner's circumstances - reductions due to financial resources difficulties & variations RE the manner of meeting needs, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Due process requirements associated with Direct Payments and Health Budgets, Due process rights in care planning, Duties and Discretions, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Fees Issues with the Public Sector, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Issues of importance to social care service providers, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), The conditions on which choice of accommodation depends, The irrelevance of a council's financial resources for whether a need is met; relevant only for HOW, The significance of an arbitarily/indefensibly low rate to meet a person's need for Choice of Accommodation challenges, Top ups and Additional Payments /

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 […]

I care for a disabled adult and I’ve heard social workers claim it would be more cost effective to put him in residential care. I understand the council can’t force this but are they able to stop paying or limit/reduce his care funding to indirectly leave him with no choice? Read More »

Can the LA refuse to pay costs incurred by a PA (that they are funding to meet eligible need) such as mileage, expenses while out supporting the individual such as meals/entrance fees etc?If they cannot refuse, how does the LA work out how much to provide to allow for variable allowances?

1 Comment / Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Assessment and Eligibility, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Charging for transport provided or allowing a disregard from income for transport privately provided, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Due process in eligibility decision-making under the Care Act, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Due process rights in care planning, Duties and Discretions, Eligibility under various legislative frameworks for care and support, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Human Rights obligations related to publicly funded care through private companies, Involvement and advocacy rights for a Care Act revision process, Issues of importance to social care service providers, Options for challenging the legitimacy of the Care Plan (content or value), Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Review of the Care Plan - scheduled, requested and urgent review, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), Revision process under s27 Care Act - proportionate re-assessment, a new eligibility decision and fresh care planning, Social Inclusion, Leisure and Recreational Services, The council's review of a Direct Payment Plan and Use of the Money, The law about the content of the Care Plan under the Care Act, The range of services or items on which a direct payment or PHB can lawfully be spent and those on which it cannot be spent, The range of services, items, facilities and responses able to be provided under the Care Act, Top ups and Additional Payments, Transport to services in a care plan /

There is no clear answer to this question.  Firstly it depends on the care plan – because if it’s in there, it must be funded.  Secondly, self employed PAs would decide what to invoice for and it would be part of their fee, and their own expenses deduction from their income.  Employed PAs are either

Can the LA refuse to pay costs incurred by a PA (that they are funding to meet eligible need) such as mileage, expenses while out supporting the individual such as meals/entrance fees etc?If they cannot refuse, how does the LA work out how much to provide to allow for variable allowances? Read More »

Where did the duty to assess needs arise prior to the Care Act 2014?

Leave a Comment / Assessment and Eligibility, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Failings to Assess, Reassess, Review Q&As, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Q&As on Failings regarding Assessments, Re-assessments, Reviews /

It was found in section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and implicit in other statutes such as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act etc which made qualifying for a service dependent on a judgement from an employee of the local social services authority.  The 1990 Act did not

Where did the duty to assess needs arise prior to the Care Act 2014? Read More »

Milburn, R (On the Application Of) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207 (28 February 2023)

Leave a Comment / Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning /

Facts:The main issue concerned a dispute regarding the respective jurisdictions of the Respondent Ombudsman and the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability [“SENDIST”]). The crux of the appeal lay within the meaning and scope of s26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974 [“the LGA 1974”] and, more specifically, the meaning to be attributed to

Milburn, R (On the Application Of) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207 (28 February 2023) Read More »

LB Tower Hamlets v A (by her litigation friend the Official solicitor) & KF [2020]

Assessing for incapacity where it is relevant to Care Act functions, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, How the Mental Capacity Act affects the Care Act, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Power of attorney and deputyship - scope and limitations, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning /

Keywords: Capacity, Accommodation A was 69 years old and had a diagnosis of Korsakoff’s dementia. She had no children and her former husband had died. She has many caring friends who have taken an active part in her life and in these proceedings. She had lived in her flat, of which she was clearly very

LB Tower Hamlets v A (by her litigation friend the Official solicitor) & KF [2020] Read More »

Human rights underpin all social work and social care law – regardless of the Care Act, please note, or any suspension thereof – Goldsmith v Wandsworth LBC – [2004], Court of Appeal

Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Article 8 the right to respect for home, family, private life and correspondence, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Duties and Discretions, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Human Rights in health and Social Care, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, The irrelevance of a council's financial resources for whether a need is met; relevant only for HOW /

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1170.html Lest anyone think that there is no duty to give reasons for a care planning decision in the current crisis, they will be assisted by reminding themselves of the Goldsmith decision from 2004 – from even before the Care Act came in, and when care plans were not even statutory, please note. Under the

Human rights underpin all social work and social care law – regardless of the Care Act, please note, or any suspension thereof – Goldsmith v Wandsworth LBC – [2004], Court of Appeal Read More »

Antoniak v Westminster City Council

Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Due process in eligibility decision-making under the Care Act, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Duties and Discretions, Eligibility under various legislative frameworks for care and support, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Judicial Review, Legal rules as to what must be considered on Assessment, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, The irrelevance of a council's financial resources for whether a need is met; relevant only for HOW /

Well, goodness me, what a Happy New Year! A council finally got successfully judicially reviewed for failing to follow the Act and statutory guidance with regard to ignoring human assistance in meeting identified needs (it also managed to fail to follow the logic of its own forms, incidentally!). In Antoniak v Westminster City Council, the

Antoniak v Westminster City Council Read More »

Staffing issues

Leave a Comment / Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Due process rights in care planning, Duties and Discretions, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Fettering and Exception making, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights /

Staff in health and social care need to know about the law for a number of reasons:   They are public officers, bound by statute, but also given special powers beyond those available to the ordinary individual, for the exercise of which they must be accountable, through recording and supervision and complaints, as well as litigation.  

Staffing issues Read More »

Choice of Accommodation pre Care Act

Leave a Comment / Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Historical, Historical Accommodation choice rights pre Care Act, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning /

Local authorities have statutory duties to provide residential or nursing home placements for people assessed to be in need. It is no longer a favoured means of discharging this duty to run such homes in-house. Local authorities are entitled by s26 National Assistance Act (see Wandsworth LBC ex p Beckwith no. 1) to contract for all the care they

Choice of Accommodation pre Care Act Read More »

The Queen on the application of Capenhurst, Kirby, King, Mistry, and Joachim v Leicester City Council [2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin)

Leave a Comment / Advocacy, Involvement, Participation, Information rights and Consultation, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Consultation, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights /

The claimants sought judicial review to quash six decisions of the defendant local authority (LCC) to cease funding six voluntary organisations (VO’s)  The claims arose as a result of a change in political control of LCC in 2003. The policy of the new administration was to restrict funding to providing “core” services. The effect of

The Queen on the application of Capenhurst, Kirby, King, Mistry, and Joachim v Leicester City Council [2004] EWHC 2124 (Admin) Read More »