Introduction, principles and statutory machineryCare and Support Statutory Guidance
10.1Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to keep under review care and support/support plans and, also, to review them on a reasonable request made by or on behalf of the adult/carer.
10.2If the local authority is satisfied that circumstances have changed in a way that affects a care and support/support plan then it must undertake a further assessment, financial assessment and determination of eligible needs and prepare a revised care and support/support plan.
10.3The review of care and support plans is dealt with at Chapter 13 of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. The Guidance advises, at paragraph 13.32, that reviews are undertaken every 12 months (with a ‘light touch’ review six/eight weeks after completion of a new care and support/support plan).
10.4Most reviews are uncontroversial – they are an obviously necessary way of fine-tuning a care and support/support package so that it keeps in step with changes of need.
10.5Difficult cases can arise when a local authority reviews a care package because budgetary pressures have persuaded it to endeavour to reduce the cost of care packages. However:
•it is unlawful simply to reduce care provision because of budgetary pressures;
•there has to be a re-assessment that demonstrates that eligible needs will continue to be met.
1R v Islington LBC ex p McMillan (1997–8) 1 CCLR 7, QBD and below at para 10.10. 10.6The new national eligibility threshold will limit local authorities’ freedom of manoeuvre to some extent, in that they will no longer be able to ‘review down’ care packages as a result of adopting diminished eligibility criteria (unless their criteria are more generous than the national threshold).
10.7It can be expected, however, that during times of continued budgetary pressures, local authorities will re-examine care packages to see whether (i) eligible needs can be assessed as less than before; (ii) eligible needs can be met more cost-effectively; (iii) non-eligible needs should continue to be met; and (iv) charges should apply/be increased.
10.8In such circumstances, the potential for budgetary pressures unduly to distort the assessment process, and the suffering resulting from lost or reduced services, often results in complaints or litigation and can be expected to continue to do so.
10.9The sense one gets from the cases, is that the courts will often bring a more intense scrutiny to bear on assessments that appear to seek to reduce care services, for budgetary reasons.
2See, for example, R v Birmingham CC ex p Killigrew (2000) 3 CCLR 109; R (Goldsmith) v Wandsworth LBC [2004] EWCA Civ 1170, (2004) 7 CCLR 472.