Consultation was unlawful when the decision had already been made, it did not canvass alternatives, did not sufficiently involve consultees and gave insufficient timeWednesbury unreasonableness:already been made, where decisions have

Facts: Barnet and Portsmouth both separately decided to terminate certain on-site, live-in services for sheltered tenants, substituting a mobile night-service, with an alarm call system.

Judgment: Deputy High Court Judge Milwyn Jarman held that Portsmouth’s consultation had been inadequate in that it’s ‘consultation document’ spoke in terms of a decision already having been made, did not canvass alternatives and failed sufficiently to involved disabled persons; also, the time afforded for representations was too short and Portsmouth had failed to take proper account of the representations made. Additionally, neither Barnet nor Portsmouth had done sufficient to draw decision-makers’ attention to the duty at section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, nor to have specific regard to the impact on those residents with a disability (cf. the residents in general) nor to take account that it might be necessary to treat such persons more favourably. Further, both authorities’ conclusions, in their equalities impact assessments, that there would not be any adverse impact on residents, were Wednesbury unreasonable.