20.33R v Bristol CC ex p Penfold (1997–8) 1 CCLR 315, QBD
A mentally unwell single parent who had become intentionally homeless might need accommodation in order to meet her need for care
Facts: Ms Penfold was a homeless single parent who suffered from anxiety and depression. She was no longer entitled to assistance under the Housing Acts. Bristol declined to assess Ms Penfold’s needs under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, on the ground that she did not appear to be a person who ‘may’ need services and, in any event, there was no realistic prospect of the local authority providing her with accommodation under any of the community care legislation, given its straightened resources and the applicant’s accommodation history.
Judgment: Scott Baker J held, at 322E, as follows:
It seems to me that Parliament has expressed section 47(1) in very clear terms. The opening words of the subsection, the first step in the three stage process, provide a very low threshold test. The reference is to community care services the authority may provide or arrange for. And the services are those of which the person may be in need. If that test is passed it is mandatory to carry out the assessment. The word shall emphasises that this is so … As a matter of logic, it is difficult to see how the existence or otherwise of resources to meet a need can determine whether or not that need exists … Even if there is no hope from the resources point of view of meeting any needs identified in the assessment, the assessment may serve a useful purpose in identifying for the local authority unmet needs which will help it to plan for the future … Resource implications in my view play no part in the decision whether to carry out an assessment.