5 Judical Reviews your Care processes need updating with

 

Over the last five years there have been a number of judicial reviews which have made judgements on what is applicable and what must be considered when dealing with  Social Care processes Direct Payments and Disability Related Expenditures.

As these (judicial review) decisions have been made at the highest courts, they need to be considered and implemented in local authority and health policies. To date I still regularly hear that authorties are ignoring this judgements or just don't know about them. Following examination of a number of policies over the last few years, I've yet to see these being made part of the processes. In fact, most processes will go out of their way to add or not allow things which are clearly applicable.

Many people will argue that those cases relate to those circumstances and place and time. They may do; However, under the law there is the The Doctrine of Precedent which is the custom of the courts to stand by previous decisions, so that once a point of law is decided upon by a court, then the same law must be applied to future cases with materially similar facts. This Doctrine of Precedent is often referred to as 'stare decisis'.

Once these cases become "law" the judgements tend to stand until a higher court makes an alternative judgement or the government changes the law.

With this in mind, here are five recent cases, that Direct Payment process, including the fiancial assessment, writers need to have due regard to when writing or administrating such process. If not included, that process itself could be subject to challenge.

Unfortunately it seems that rather than need more; More processes are being directed by audit and financial constraints. Those who put out these audit functions must also be aware and take these in to consideration when applying the rules.

It's not important whether a party won or lost the case, what is important is what the judge has said about specific matters that sets precedent.

1. NORFOLK - check policies to ensure they don't treat disabled people differently (discriminate.). I.e. charging people who can't work and those that can must be considered, as-well as the ability to pay those charges in the in the financial assessment. 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/3436.html

2. SUFFOLK - Family member's (carers) and those who meet needs entitled to holidays as part of care needs. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/3368.html

3. READING/WESTMINISTER - Day care travel costs, staff costs all claimable. Importance of considering wellbeing as in Care Act in assessment and need to visist specifc day care. As are specific activities organised for group of disabled people is still activity (e.g. bowling). Argument available to everyone not relevant. Cheaper option not relevant if specific requirements fullfills needs. One point of particular interest is the judge quotes from the guidance and says the care plan is a good starting point,but it doesn't say everything has to be in it.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2023/1449#download-options

4. BIRMINGHAM - confirms Norfolk decision regarding charging differently for people who can't work. Birmingham could have changed policy but didn't. See also similar case from Scotland regarding charging costs same matter. 

https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-w-v-birmingham-793916669²

5. BOLTON - carers meal costs; travel costs; fuel; parking; gym activities; entrance to activities; specific branded meal costs, are all disability related expenditure. It's the authorities choice to use PIP in the financial calculations, they don't have to. 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/699.html

With regard to case law it is also important to see and make use of local government ombudsman decisions and Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman cases. Relevant cases are regularly updated in our comprehensive Disability Related Expenditure Guide. Which can be found here 

https://haloabletec.blogspot.com/2022/05/disability-related-expenditure-updated.html