20.49R (SG) v Haringey LBC [2015] EWHC 2579 (Admin), (2015) 18 CCLR 444
A local authority need only provide accommodation under the Care Act 2014 in response to an accommodation-related need
Facts: SG was an asylum-seeker provided with asylum support. She suffered from severe mental health problems and needed help with self-care, preparing and eating food, simple tasks and medication. Haringey declined to provide residential accommodation to SG under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and then, later, under the Care Act 2014.
Judgment: Deputy High Court Judge Bowers held that the assessment under the Care Act 2014 was unlawful because (i) Haringey failed to ensure that SG was offered an independent advocate, under section 67(2) of the Care Act 2014; and (ii) Haringey failed to ask itself the correct question:
56. I first reiterate that the authorities already considered stand for these propositions, which I think continue to apply under the Care Act:
(a) the services provided by the council must be accommodation-related for accommodation to be potentially a duty;
(b) in most cases the matter is best left to the good judgment and common sense of the local authority;
(c) ‘accommodation-related care and attention’ means care and attention of a sort which is normally provided in the home or will be ‘effectively useless’ if the claimant has no home.
57. Mr Burton submits there is a duty here to provide accommodation because it would be irrational not to do so in order to meet the adult’s care and support needs. He has the lesser case, however, that the Council did not ask itself the correct questions. I agree with Mr Burton in the latter argument that the only suggestion that the question of whether or not the defendant was under a duty to provide accommodation was even considered by the defendant is contained in the pre-action letter. I also accept that there is no evidence that the defendant asked itself whether, even if services could have been provided in a non-home environment, they would have been rendered effectively useless if the claimant were homeless and sleeping on the street. This is so despite the fact that it was acknowledged that it was ‘agreed that [the claimant] would benefit from some structured activities to minimise her PTSD symptoms but before that she needs help with the very basic practical support before she can be referred for more structured activities.’ I thus think that the care plan has to be redone.