2011 12 Adult Care

Sunday 1 January 2012

Share This Page

Email This Page

R (RP) v Harrow LBC [2011] EWHC 3251 (Stadlen J): the council’s decision to close a residential respite care unit for disabled children was lawful because the council had rationally concluded that it would be able to meet by alternative means the assessed needs of such of the existing users of the unit who would remain eligible for respite care. The council had enough information make that decision without carrying out individual re-assessments. Click here for the transcript.

R (Mavalon Care Ltd) v Pembrokeshire CC [2011] EWHC 3371 Admin (Beatson J): the council’s decision to set a weekly rate of £464.00 per resident for care homes was unlawful, principally because (1) the fact that the council did not want to incentivise new building was not a rational justification for providing a 6% return on capital, instead of the 12% return on capital recommended by the Laing & Buisson model that the council had agreed to adopt (because capital costs were based on real expenditure already actually incurred on providing care home accommodation, which could have been invested elsewhere), (2) it was also not a rational justification that care home capital values had reduced by 25%, as the market still expected a return on investment of between 12.5 and 16.6%, (3) the council had no rational justification for abandoning the quality incentive in the Laing & Buisson model (and rewarding owners who do not invest in quality at the same level as those who do). Click here for the transcript.

R(Rajput) v Waltham Forest LBC, R (Tiller v Essex CC) [2011] EWCA Civ 1577 (Carnwath, Rimer, Jackson LJJ): in Tiller, the council had decided to replace a 24-hour/7-day week warden service with a Monday-Friday service plus telecare, at a sheltered housing site. Although the decision was succinct and failed to refer to section 49A of the DDA 1995 “His reasons for his decision showed that he understood that the purpose of the changes was to achieve costs savings; that he understood hat concerns about the management of future needs had been expressed; and that he was satisfied that revised proposals for the provision of such needs would met them”. Accordingly, the decision was upheld. In Rajput, the appeal was dismissed because the day centre in question had now been redeveloped and the appellant had failed to put to the council its case as to why that redevelopment ought to be, at least in part, reversed. Click here for the transcript.

R (East Midlands Care Ltd) v Leicestershire CC [2011] EWHC 3096 Admin (HHJ Langan QC): the council’s decision not to increase the level of fees offered to care home providers was unlawful principally because (1) the council’s assessment of actual local costs of care was too broad brush, - what was required was an analytical, indeed a mathematical approach, (2) the council had failed to consult adequately. Click here for the transcript.

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards.

+ View more awards