Not only had the local authorities done insufficient to draw the decision-makers’ attention to their duty under the disability equality duty, the impact assessments, concluding that there would not be any adverse consequences, were Wednesbury irrationalWednesbury unreasonablenessWednesbury unreasonablenessWednesbury unreasonablenessWednesbury unreasonableness

Facts: Barnet and Portsmouth both separately decided to terminate certain on-site, live-in warden services for sheltered tenants, substituting a mobile night-service and 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 involve 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 1985, nor to have specific regard to the impact on those residents with a disability (cf. the residents in general) of the proposed change, 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.