5.50R (W) v Birmingham CC [2011] EWHC 1147 (Admin), (2011) 14 CCLR 516
A generalised consideration of the likely impact, without any real assessment of the practical effect of what appeared to be a significant restriction of eligibility for care services, resulted in a local authority failing to have ‘due regard’ to the needs identified in the PSED
Facts: in order to make necessary budgetary savings, Birmingham decided only to meet ‘critical’ needs, whereas it had previously met ‘critical’ and ‘substantial’ needs.
Judgment: Walker J held that Birmingham’s consultation and its discharge of the disability equality duty had been unlawful: the material prepared for decision-makers failed to identify the risk of adverse consequences in practical terms or give any idea of how the potential severity of the proposal could be mitigated. Accordingly, the decision-makers had not had ‘due regard’ to the needs identified in the PSED.