Facts: in order to achieve necessary budgetary reductions, Worcestershire concluded that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it would not pay a sum for home care for an adult under 65 that exceeded the net weekly cost of a care home placement. The claimant, who was significantly disabled, contended that Worcestershire had not consulted properly, or discharged its PSED under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Judgment: Hickinbottom J held that whilst the claim asserted that consultees had not had adequate information on which to comment, and that decision-makers had not been informed of the likely consequences, that was on the false premise that Worcestershire’s policy would result in about half of those within its scope having to choose between receiving less than was needed at home or going into residential care, whereas the reality was that, for those affected, the most likely result was that hard consideration would have to be given as to how their needs would be met more cost effectively at home and the materials for the decision-makers made it clear that hard choices would have to be made and that some service users’ care package would not completely comprise their first choice of services. Accordingly, the consultation had been lawful.