Fairness and due process in the context of care planning

Do you always need to be reassessed if you wish to use a pre-exisiting care package/budget differently, just to better meet needs, not because there’s been a change in them?

Leave a Comment / Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Article 5 the right to liberty, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Care Planning, Cuts and Personal Budgets Q&As, Direct Payments and Personal Health Budgets, Discretionary charging for meeting a person's needs under the Care Act, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Duties and Discretions, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Human Rights principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Q&As on Care planning, Cuts, and Personal Budgets, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning, Review of the Care Plan - scheduled, requested and urgent review, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), 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 /

It depends on how specific your original care or support plan was in the first place, and the direct payments practice/policies of your council. The more specific, the more INPUT/task/service based the care or support plan was, the less flexibility you were given. The more OUTCOMES based it was, the more flexibility you were given, […]

Do you always need to be reassessed if you wish to use a pre-exisiting care package/budget differently, just to better meet needs, not because there’s been a change in them? Read More »

JG, R (on the application of) v LB of Southwark

Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment of carers under s10 of the Care Act, Assessment under the Care Act, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Judicial Review, Legal rules as to what must be considered on Assessment, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Meeting eligible carers' needs, Person's own circumstances - the implication of increases and reductions or stabilisation of needs, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), The rights of carers, in relation to health and social care services and support /

[2020] EWHC 1989 (Admin) Case Background JG was a ‘profoundly disabled young woman’ who requires care and supervision with all aspects of her daily life. She received care at home, by her parents, and a team of paid carers funded by the Council (the defendant). Southwark Borough Council had provided JG with care since 2013,

JG, R (on the application of) v LB of Southwark Read More »

A council successfully defends a cut to a Care Act care plan by phasing in a big cut, slowly

Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Commissioner's circumstances - reductions due to financial resources difficulties & variations RE the manner of meeting needs, Delay, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning, Review of the Care Plan - scheduled, requested and urgent review, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

CASCAIDr’s CEO has long suggested during training sessions that mincing towards meanness is much harder to challenge, even with use of public law principles, in the context of adults’ social care or CHC services, than making a giant cut overnight. If commissioners aren’t care aware, and care managers and reviewers are risk averse or incentivised

A council successfully defends a cut to a Care Act care plan by phasing in a big cut, slowly Read More »

Staffordshire County Council, ex parte Farley [1997] 7 CL 572 (QBD).

Leave a Comment / Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Involvement and advocacy rights for a Care Act revision process, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

Injunctive relief – re-assessment – care package – s2 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. An interim injunction, restoring the original care package, was granted after the local authority radically reduced the applicant’s services (in particular by virtually removing a night-sitting service). In granting the injunction, the judge noted that nothing in the new

Staffordshire County Council, ex parte Farley [1997] 7 CL 572 (QBD). Read More »

R (on the application of Rutter) v Stockton on Tees Borough Council [2008] QBD (Admin) 3/10/2008

Leave a Comment / Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

In this case the applicant, R (who was 101 years old, suffered from dementia and was frail), sought a judicial review of the decision by the Local Authority to close a care home owned and operated by them where R was resident. The Local Authority conducted a review of the care home and put before

R (on the application of Rutter) v Stockton on Tees Borough Council [2008] QBD (Admin) 3/10/2008 Read More »

R (on the application of MA & Others) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions and Equality & Human Rights Commission [2014] EWCA Civ 13

Leave a Comment / Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, How housing rights fit in with the Care Act, Human Rights principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Human Rights relevant to Care Planning, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

The claimants appealed against the refusal of judicial review of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”) and the introduction of the “bedroom criteria”.  The 2012 Regulations had the effect of reducing the eligible rent, for the purpose of calculating housing benefit, where the number of bedrooms exceeds the number to which the

R (on the application of MA & Others) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions and Equality & Human Rights Commission [2014] EWCA Civ 13 Read More »

R (on the application of LH) v Shropshire Council [2014] EWCA Civ 404

Leave a Comment / Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, General rules about changing the content or value of a care or a support plan based on the Care Act case law, Judicial Review, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Provider's circumstances - closures, service reconfigurations and staffing issues, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, 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, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

LH was 64 years old and had a learning disability.  She had been assessed as having substantial care needs and had been using the services of Hartley’s Day Centre in Shrewsbury.  She attended the centre on a regular basis and had long-standing friendships with other users of the day centre.  Shropshire Council decided to close

R (on the application of LH) v Shropshire Council [2014] EWCA Civ 404 Read More »

Pathfinder NHS Trust, ex p Wey [2000] 3 CCLR 271 (QBD)

Leave a Comment / Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, 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 or support plan revisions, Regulators associated with health and social care, Remedies, rights, complaints, regulatory and criminal law aspects to adult social care, enforcement of one’s rights, 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 /

Mental health It is unlawful for a responsible medical officer to use powers under s16 Mental Health Act 1983 to reclassify a patient’s condition when the patient’s application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s72(5) has been granted by the tribunal.

Pathfinder NHS Trust, ex p Wey [2000] 3 CCLR 271 (QBD) Read More »

Ombudsman’s investigation – Cumbria County Council (no.03/C/03360)

Leave a Comment / Article 14 freedom from discrimination in the context of one's human rights, Article 3 freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, Human Rights principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

The decision of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) on a complaint made against Cumbria County Council (Cumbria) tracked a local authority’s response to an elderly person’s deteriorating health.  Mrs T received domiciliary care for 30 minutes each day to help with personal hygiene and to prepare breakfast.  A year later this had increased to 1

Ombudsman’s investigation – Cumbria County Council (no.03/C/03360) Read More »

O.H. v London Borough of Bexley [2015] EWHC 1843 (Admin)

Leave a Comment / Fairness and due process in the context of care planning, How Children's Services fit in with the Care Act (and transitioning from Children's Services, Legality, unlawfulness and error of law in the context of care planning, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content), Status of a Transition Assessment and indication as to eligibility and likely care plan contents/value, Transitioning to the Care Act for adults' services from children's services, Young carers' rights to assessment and services from health and social care /

O.H. v London Borough of Bexley [2015] EWHC 1843 (Admin) Keywords: assessment, care planning, reviews, transparency, recording decision making This was a successful challenge to a local authority’s effective reduction in an adult’s care package during a protracted, disorganised and ill recorded ‘review’ process following transition to adult services. Following the end of O’s placement

O.H. v London Borough of Bexley [2015] EWHC 1843 (Admin) Read More »