Rationality and relevant considerations, 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 »

R (on the application of JG) v London Borough of Southwark

Appropriateness, Sufficiency and Transparency of a care plan, Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Due process requirements for Lawful Assessment, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Judicial Review, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, 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, 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 /

R (on the application of JG) v London Borough of Southwark [2020] EWHC 1989 (Admin) Case Background JG is a profoundly disabled young woman who requires care and supervision with all aspects of her daily life She was receiving care at home, by her parents and a team of paid carers funded by Southwark LBC.

R (on the application of JG) v London Borough of Southwark Read More »

Ali Raja & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 1456 (Admin) (05 June 2020)

Assessment and Eligibility, Assessment under the Care Act, Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Due Process requirements for revising any care or support plan based on the Care Act regime, Duties and Discretions, Judicial Review, Powers and circumstances in which there may only be one sole justifiable response, 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), Revision process under s27 Care Act - proportionate re-assessment, a new eligibility decision and fresh care planning, The legal position regarding carers' decisions to withdraw or reduce informal care provision, The rights of carers, in relation to health and social care services and support /

What Happened This case involved two adult men (A and B), aged 25 and 32, with severe physical and learning disabilities who lived with their mother (X). A and B had extensive night time care needs. They needed to be repositioned numerous times to avoid pressure damage, and it was assessed in a 2017 care

Ali Raja & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 1456 (Admin) (05 June 2020) 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 »

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 »

R (on the application of ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION (2016)

Leave a Comment / Care Planning, Budgets and Choice Rights, Judicial Review, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to Care Planning, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of 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, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

R (on the application of ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION (2016) Keywords: PSED, irrationality This judgement follows on from R (on the application of ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION [2012]. In the earlier judicial review, Essex CC were successful in arguing that a decision by the secretary

R (on the application of ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION (2016) Read More »

Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority, ex p Perry [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Med 73 (QBD)

Leave a Comment / Breaching article 8 by making it a condition of ongoing care that one moves home to new supported living, Failing to balance the pros and cons of changing an incapacitated person's daily living arrangements, Failing to consult best interests consultees before revising a care plan, Mental Capacity Act provisions relevant to care or support plan revisions, Public law principles relevant to care or support plan revisions, Rationality and relevant considerations, in the context of care planning, Reviews and Revisions (cuts or changes to content) /

Closure – hospital — home for life – consultation It was necessary to consider the individual circumstances of each resident of a long-stay hospital for people with profound learning disabilities before making a decision to close the hospital. It was also necessary to look at all that the health authority had said to the residents

Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority, ex p Perry [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Med 73 (QBD) Read More »