58. Of far greater concern, in my judgment, is the concern of that exercise. In my view, the initial letter of 21 May did not give an adequate summary of the true reasons for the proposed closures. References to the policy considerations that favoured a reduction in the amount of residential service provision were very brief. The specific reasons expressed for the closure, or for the proposals to close the two individuals homes, were incorrect or misleading. In the case of Warthfield, the reason was put solely on the basis of health and safety reasons arising out of a structural fault concerning the foundations. Yet the detailed survey report not only fails to support that, but shows that what was said was simply wrong. The survey report goes out of its way to emphasise the very limited nature of the problem with the building, which it is said expressly should not be taken out of context. Yet, in my view, it was taken out of context and was presented misleadingly, whether deliberately or not does not matter. Moreover, the extended timeframe of 12 years envisaged in the survey report for dealing with the problem was not mentioned, and there was no explanation of the costs of remedying the problem on the alternative basis put forward in the report.

59. In the case of Whittaker, the bare statement that closure was proposed because the home does not meet the required standards of registration under the Care Standards Regime was also inadequate, if not again misleading, even though it was thought at the time that the care standards would be legal requirements. Any proper understanding of the true reasons for the proposed closure would require at the least a comparison with the other home that the council thought it preferable to retain instead of Whittaker. The bald statement of reasons expressed in the letter was not a proper basis for consultation.

60. Indeed, in neither case was there any indication of possible alternatives, including in particular some explanation of why the closure of these two homes was favoured over the closure of others. There was no indication that this was something on which residents could make representations. What was said about future consultation was expressed to relate to the details of the proposals rather than to the principle. There was nothing to suggest that the principle of closure was being raised for consideration and comment.

61. Thus, although views were invited, too little was said by way of background and reasons to enable meaningful consultation process to take place. In that connection it is also important that the letter did not fall to be read against the background of some previously published policy review. In the circumstances, and given the relatively short timescale, I regard it as important that clear and accurate reasons for the proposal to close the homes were given, albeit briefly. The possibility that residents could influence the decision by their representation should have been made clear.

62. I bear in mind that the requirements of consultation as laid down and applied in ex p Baker are not particularly onerous. But what was done here was not sufficient to meet those requirements. It was not sufficient to ensure fairness. I am not satisfied that what was said at the subsequent meetings – whether meetings with residents and relatives in the homes themselves or council meetings – was sufficient in terms of content or specificity to cure those problems and to put the consultation process onto a proper basis.