22.12R (Alloway) v Bromley LBC [2004] EWHC 2108 (Admin), (2005) 8 CCLR 61
A local authority fetters its discretion if it rules out one service from the start on costs grounds and does not fairly compare the rival options
Facts: Mr Alloway was a 19-year-old man who was autistic and suffered from learning disabilities. Bromley’s community care assessment concluded that he should be placed at Hesley Village and College. However, the Council then purported to place him at a cheaper option at Robinia Care. Bromley concluded that Hesley was unnecessarily expensive for Mr Alloway’s needs but did not assert that its decision-making was affected by, or justified by, any lack of resources on its part.
Judgment: Crane J quashed this decision and said this:
71. In my judgment, the defendant’s decision-making was flawed. The 2003 decision not to send Stephen to Hesley Village at that stage is not, as I have indicated, flawed. But, by at least February 2004, it is clear, in my view, that Hesley had been ruled out as too expensive and not justified, even before any viable alternatives had been identified. Moreover, it had been ruled out as too expensive on grounds that were clearly, at least in part, wrong. I refer to the apparent error, repeated by Mr Wright in his placement assessment, about the possibility of additions to that sum, and also the lack, apparently, of any exploration of assistance from the health care trust for assistance with funding.
72. It is very probable that Hesley, even on an accurate calculation, is the most expensive, perhaps significantly the most expensive, but the evidence is that it does at least cater for Stephen’s level of problems. Whether it provides more than he needs is, of course, another matter.
73. In relation to Solent, on the assumption that that placement is still a possibility, there appears to be no plan, certainly no plan in the evidence, for Stephen’s care there. There is, in the annex to the acknowledgment of service, a breakdown of the costs in relation to Solent, but although quite plainly they have assessed Stephen and they think that they can manage him, the court really has no basis for forming any view, and nor, on what is before the court, would the defendant have any ability to form a view of the suitability of Solent.
74. In relation to Robinia, they have plainly carried out an assessment. That is included in the annex to the acknowledgment of service. I emphasise that I am not reaching any conclusion that Robinia, or indeed Solent, should be ruled out of consideration, but there is no evidence before the court of an informed decision based on a fair comparison of Robinia (or indeed Solent) and Hesley, including an accurate comparison of costs.
75. In relation to Hesley, my view as to the early ruling out of Hesley, does make it correct to say that the council fettered their discretion.