R (H) v Birmingham CC  EWHC 2754 Admin (HHJ Purle QC): the council had acted lawfully in consulting on bringing its respite care scheme within its RAS (resource allocation scheme) and assessing the needs of both carers and service users. It had been reasonable to focus on procedures and not outcomes. Complaints that individuals would receive in sufficient respite care were misplaced because the RAS had a mechanism whereby the hours allocated for respite care would be moderated in the light of needs assessment and because the council was committed to keeping the system under ongoing review. There had not been any breach of the council’s equalities duties. Click here for the transcript(Casetrack users only – there is as yet no free transcript).
R (W) v Croydon BC (extempore judgment, Ousely J, 3rdMarch 2011, neutral citation awaited): the local authority had acted unlawfully when deciding to terminate W’s placement at Helsey Village, a specialist care home for young people with autism and other disabilities, and to arrange for him to move into supported living accommodation. It had failed to consult with W’s parents, and with Helsey Village, as required by the National Assistance Act 1948 (Choice of Accommodation) Directions 1992, the Community Care Directions 2004 and section 4(7) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Click here for a note of the judgment. (Lawtel users only: there is as yet no transcript).