16.31R v Barking and Dagenham LBC ex p Lloyd (2001) 4 CCLR 196, CA
On analysis, redevelopment plans would not breach any ‘home for life’ promise whilst detailed criticisms of the process should be pursued through a complaints procedure
Facts: residents of care home accommodation submitted that the temporary closure and redevelopment of their home breached their legitimate expectations in a number of respects, including in relation to ‘home for life’ promises.
Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Schiemann, Sedley and Arden LJJ) dismissed the appeal, holding that, on the facts, the redevelopment plans would not necessarily involve a breach of any promises and that the assessments and care plans were adequate as provisional documents. Further, in general, a complaint that an assessment or care plan was inadequate should be pursued by way of a complaints procedure:
27. It seems to us however that, leaving aside for the moment any undertakings to the court, the court is not the appropriate organ to be prescriptive as to the degree of detail which should go into a care plan or as to the amount of consultation to be carried out with Ms Lloyd’s advisers. In practice these are matters for the council, and if necessary its complaints procedure. If the council has failed to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance and is arguably in breach of its statutory duties in relation to the way it carries out its assessment and what it puts into its care plans then aggrieved persons should in an appropriate case turn first to the Secretary of State. Where there is room for differences of judgment the Secretary of State and his advisers may have a useful input. The court is here as a last resort where there is illegality. Here there is not – it is right to say these matters have not been fully canvassed in argument.