9.80R v Wigan MBC ex p Tammadge (1997–8) 1 CCLR 581, QBD
Local authorities are required to meet needs that they have accepted as being eligible
Facts: the social services complaints review panel concluded that the applicant and her family were in urgent need of re-housing for health and care reasons. Wigan accepted that and ascertained that the most cost-effective solution was to knock together two adjacent houses in its area. However, Wigan then decided not to undertake that course because ‘the potential benefits … do not justify the significant costs’.
Judgment: Forbes J held that while resources were relevant to a limited extent when determining whether and if so what needs existed for residential accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, once a need has been assessed as existing, the authority is under a duty to make provision for that need. That applied in this case and Wigan was ordered to undertake the work that it had itself determined as being the most cost-effective solution:
I have come to the firm conclusion that Mr Gordon’s submissions are correct. In my view, SSCRP’s finding as to Mrs Tammadge’s need for larger accommodation is perfectly clear from the wording in which that particular conclusion is expressed. Moreover, that conclusion is entirely in keeping with views of Wigan’s own professionally qualified staff and advisers, as expressed both before and after the hearing before the SSCRP. I am therefore satisfied that, by a date no later than 22 October 1996 (when it was acknowledged that Wigan had accepted the SSCRP finding: see above), Mrs Tammadge’s need for larger accommodation was established. I reject Miss Patterson’s submissions to the contrary. As a result, from that date Wigan have been obliged to make provision of such accommodation to Mrs Tammadge and her family: see ex p M at pages 1009–1010. Once the duty had arisen in this way, it was not lawful of Wigan to refuse to perform that duty because of a shortage of or limits upon its financial resources or for any of the other reasons expressed in Mr Walker’s letters of 30 July and 28 August 1997: see ex p Sefton at page 58 and also at page 67I–J, where Lord Woolf said this:
‘However, in this case it is clear from the evidence that Sefton accepted that Mrs Blanchard met its own threshold as a person in need of care and attention. What it was seeking to do was to say that because of its lack of resources notwithstanding this it was not prepared to meet the duty which was placed upon it by the section. This it was not entitled to do.’
Comment: the principle should still apply under section 18 of the Care Act 2014 and, in relation to carers, under section 20.