8.55R v Haringey LBC ex p Norton (1997–8) 1 CCLR 168, QBD
An assessment must explore social and recreational needs, not just social care needs
Facts: Mr Norton was severely disabled as a result of Multiple Sclerosis. Haringey reduced his care provision from 24 hours/day live-in care, to five hours a day practical assistance for budgetary reasons. There was no suggestion that Mr Norton’s needs had changed. However, on re-assessment, Haringey concluded that Mr Norton had not, in reality, needed his earlier care package and that five hours a day was sufficient to meet his needs.
Judgment: Deputy High Court Judge Henderson QC held it had been unlawful only to assess Mr Norton’s social care needs and not, also, his social, recreational and leisure needs:
I consider that the Respondent misdirected itself in law. Reading the underlined sentences of the decision letter in context, the Respondent differentiated between the Applicant’s social, recreational and leisure needs for which it did not believe that it needed to provide from the Applicant’s personal care needs for which it recognised that it did need to provide. While the differentiation itself was not objectionable in point of law, because the Act of 1970 itemises such matters separately, it was impermissible to carry out the reassessment by putting social, recreation and leisure needs on one side and saying that ‘I would be happy to provide you with details of the Winkfield Road Resource Centre.
Assessment process