Facts: Birmingham had provided the claimant with 12 hours care each day, in the light of her severe disability. It then moved the claimant to better adapted accommodation and reduced her hours of care to three and a half hours during weekdays, with some additional care over the weekend. The decision was unreasoned. After the issue of a judicial review, Birmingham undertook an assessment, which concluded that the hours should be increased to six hours each day, and which gave as its reason that, under the existing arrangements, little direct care was provided for most of the day.

Judgment: Hooper J held that it was notable that the reduction in the hours of care coincided with a decision that two carers rather than one needed to be provided, to comply with manual handling requirements, and that it was important that the reduction in hours was not driven by the economic consequences of that decision. In any event, Birmingham’s assessment was unlawful for two reasons: (1) it contained no proper analysis of why 12 hours care had been provided, why that was no longer necessary and what would be done if an emergency arose, (2) in breach of the statutory guidance, Birmingham had failed to take into account up-to-date medical evidence and the views of the GP and the claimant’s carers.