99. I am going to make only seven individual conclusions. But these are the basic decisions I make based on application of these particular facts and the law to this particular decision for this individual:

1. Overall in my judgment the decision of the defendant is irrational as apparent from the particular approach taken in that decision of 31st October 2014 having regard to the particular, special and unusual facts of this case of Matthew Hutchinson.2. Whilst the decision correctly focuses on the National Framework PG85.3, it does so in the context without regard to the general approach of the National Framework and PG 85.1, all of which must be read together. It therefore looks and focuses on specifically “the household costs” as set out in 85.3 and does not consider the broader questions, as apparent from 85.1, that is all the health and personal care services and associated social care services which is not just apparent from PG 85.1 but redolent throughout the whole PG and indeed the National Framework.3. The decision focuses on a concept of fuel under 85.3 which has to be read in context and in the way described by Lord Reed. The focus on fuel in that context is in this court’s view irrational. It is outside the way that word would be used normally. It therefore looks at fuel as if, in this particular case, it is fuel used for what may be described as every day household needs. This particular case does not concern fuel in that context. This particular case, on its own facts, is concerned with the use of fuel directly connected with the service provided by this authority under their needs and I have read out in detail why they selected option 4 and how that transport would be applied. That is how fuel is to be dealt with in this particular case and it is therefore wrong to deal with it as if it is a general fuel application in the context of household needs as would arise in many situations but plainly not in this. I am satisfied that is again outside the bounds of the way this particular Tribunal should have looked at the fuel as applicable to Matthew Hutchinson.4. It therefore follows that when one looks at the decision at paragraph 85.1(b) that the approach taken to the question, which was rightly asked by this authority, Sheffield CCG, was in fact irrational. They focused on the use of fuel in accordance with their policy and went straight to assert that they considered they had to review exceptional basis. That is, in this court’s view, incorrect. If they had looked at their own policy, on the facts of this case properly, it should have been apparent that they would not have gone straight to 4.2 of their transport policy and that definition which refers to the travelling to and from regular activities, such as identified in the patient’s care plan, which is in that context, but they should have done to and considered also their general approach to 4.1. Had they looked at 4.1 they would, in accordance with the National Guidance and the approach, have appreciated that, as their policy makes clear, it was not possible to state definitively that the NHS would or would not provide transport costs as part of the package of care. The NHS recognise that some patients need support and access to services. However, that transport is not itself a health or service social service care service. In applying its overriding policy in 4.1 it should have taken, and it was irrational not to take a broader view of this particular individual’s needs. It is perfectly clear that, on this particular individual’s case, the approach was to provide their own driver, who of course would have the ability to look after the particular needs which may very well arrive during that transport. It is a case in which that transport would have very likely have gone to sites direct and not to the centre. It is a case in which this is part of the care of this individual. This is not a case in which the parents have been asked to drive their own car; this is a case in which they are taking control of Matthew Hutchinson and therefore that is a package for which it is very difficult, in my judgment, makes no common sense to make that artificial delineation. It is outside the normal range of reasonable decisions.

100. It follows equally that when one looks at the decision under (c) in which review was given, that is 85.1 (c) when they ask that question. Whilst of course they asked the right question the decisions made, in this court’s judgment, are irrational on the particular facts as arise in Matthew Hutchinson’s case. The approach taken there is that in terms of they consider this to be every day household costs and therefore those transport costs should be down to Mr Hutchinson. That is looking at the case from the wrong end of the telescope. What in fact the facts of this case make perfectly clear and indeed, as I have indicated from their own transport document, and generally and this is a case in which Matthew goes to this particular home and they take charge for him. They come to his door with their own car, they pick him up and they take him to the home. That is where these costs are incurred. They were all part of the NHS duties under the framework and therefore to differentiate those petrol costs as if they are somehow down to Matthew Hutchinson is again, in my judgment, irrational and bears no reality or common sense. They therefore erred in both those two ways and two decisions.