CHAPTER 10
Re-assessments, reviews and terminations of individual services
10.1Introduction, principles and statutory machinery Cases
10.10R v Islington LBC ex p McMillan (1997–8) 1 CCLR 7, QBD Reduced care provision is only justifiable on the basis of a revised assessment (at least in the context of needs assessed as having been ‘eligible’)
10.11R v Gloucestershire CC ex p RADAR (1997–8) 1 CCLR 476, QBD The duty to re-assess before reducing services is not discharged by sending care users a pro forma letter inviting them to seek a re-assessment
10.12R v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC ex p Kujtim (1999) 2 CCLR 340, CA A local authority remains under a duty to meet eligible needs unless the applicant has manifested a persistent and unequivocal refusal to observe reasonable conditions and must be ready to re-assess where it appears that the applicant will not persist
10.13R v Birmingham CC ex p Killigrew (2000) 3 CCLR 109, QBD The reduction in care was not justified by a sufficiently adequate assessment
10.14R (Khana) v Southwark LBC (2001) 4 CCLR 267, CA A local authority may be entitled to treat its duties as discharged if an applicant refuses an offer of services assessed as meeting their needs
10.15R v Newham LBC ex p Patrick (2001) 4 CCLR 48, QBD Referring a homeless woman with care needs to a housing charity did not amount to a discharge of the duty to assess or meet her needs
10.16R (S) v Leicester CC [2004] EWHC 533 (Admin), (2004) 7 CCLR 254 A relatively formal re-assessment was required before services were terminated
10.17R (Goldsmith) v Wandsworth LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 1170, (2004) 7 CCLR 472 The assessment was not sufficiently careful to justify significant service reduction
10.18R (Alloway) v Bromley LBC [2004] EWHC 2108 (Admin), (2005) 8 CCLR 61 A local authority need not always undertake a further formal assessment but can take into account up-to-date information in determining what services to provide
10.19R (G) v North Somerset Council [2011] EWHC 2232 (Admin) North Somerset had not acted unlawfully in deciding to cut the amount of direct payments and replacing direct payments with a managed care service
10.20R (W) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 696 (Admin), (2011) 14 CCLR 247 Fair consultation was required before reducing services; where the service user lacks capacity, fair consultation with parents/carers is required by section 4(7) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005
10.21R (McDonald) v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2011] UKSC 33, (2011) 14 CCLR 341 It was lawful to re-assess the needs of a disabled person as being for incontinence pads and absorbent sheets rather than for a night-time carer to provide help getting to a commode
10.22R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC [2012] UKSC 23, [2012] 15 CCLR 374 It is lawful to use a resource allocation system to guide assessment as to what level of personal budget to provide
10.23McDonald v United Kingdom (2014) 17 CCLR 187, ECtHR It was not a breach of the ECHR for the local authority to re-assess a person’s needs and provide them with considerably less than previously, in this case, by providing incontinence pads and absorbent sheets in place of a night-time carer and commode
10.24R (Perry Clarke) v Sutton LBC [2015] EWHC 1081 (Admin), (2015) 18 CCLR 317 There had been a failure to understand the applicant’s needs such that the reduction in his care package could not be justified
10.25R (OH) v Bexley LBC [2015] EWHC 1843 (Admin) Changes of care provision are required to be justified, with reasons, in an assessment and revised support plan