13.19.2Investigation into a complaint against St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (reference number 14 009 949) (27 June 2016)
St Helens refused to undertake a financial assessment in relation to a Mr A on the ground that he had received an award of damages of £2.85M as a result of a road traffic accident and that, although the consent order did not specify any amount as having been earmarked for the cost of social care, Mr A did have substantial social care needs as a result of the accident and his very high award must have been intended to cover the cost of meeting those needs in full.
The LGO held that St Helens had been at fault by failing act in line with government guidance and case law when deciding not to provide services because of the personal injury settlement:
48. The claimant in the Peters case did not wish to seek public funding at the time the case was before the Court. The Court considered it appropriate in those particular circumstances to make provision to prevent double recovery in the event of a future application for public funding. The Deputy in Peters undertook at the time of the settlement not to apply for public funding for care without prior application to the Court of Protection and the Deputyship order contained this provision. There is no such restriction in the court order appointing Mr A’s Deputy. In another case involving this council (Mark Reeves), the Court of Protection held it was misconceived to seek to apply Peters retrospectively to a personal injury claim settled a number of years before the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Peters. So there is no legal authority for the Council seeking to apply Peters retrospectively in Mr A’s case.
49. The Council was at fault because it did not act in line with government guidance or with case law when it decided not to provide services because of Mr A’s personal injury settlement.
Comment: in a follow up report dated the 21 November 2016, the LGO noted that St Helens had refused to accept the LGO’s findings on the ‘double recovery’ issue and that Mr A had issued a judicial review.