Rodriguez-Bannister, R (on the application of) v Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust

A public body choosing between residential care and supported living must make a rational assessment of the person’s needs, risks, support requirements and interests. It may prefer one expert assessment over another and may conclude that substantial support, including 24-hour availability and a specified level of one-to-one care, can be provided in supported living. A decision is not irrational merely because another placement would provide greater continuity of care or because the proposed accommodation might later prove unsuitable. Procedural fairness does not necessarily require representation at a reconsideration meeting, particularly where the decision-maker has the relevant material and the outcome would inevitably have been the same. Article 8 adds nothing where the accommodation decision is rational and lawful.

The claimant, an adult with Asperger’s Syndrome, challenged the defendant NHS Trust’s decision that his needs could be met in supported living accommodation rather than residential care. He was living in an isolated cottage with substantial one-to-one support. His mother preferred a residential placement operated by Spectrum, while the Trust selected supported accommodation at Chy-an-Ross, with 24-hour staff availability and a minimum of 28 hours’ weekly one-to-one support.

The challenge alleged irrationality, procedural unfairness, inadequate consideration of expert evidence and support needs, failure to operate a complaints procedure, and breach of Article 8. The central issues were whether the Trust could rationally select supported living and whether its decision-making process was procedurally fair.

1. Application dismissed. The Trust’s decision that the claimant’s needs could be met in supported living accommodation was rational. The Trust was entitled to prefer Dr Williams’s assessment over Dr Shah’s concerning catatonia, and to conclude that a structured programme addressing that risk could be incorporated into supported living.
2. The distinction between residential care and supported living was a legitimate focus of the decision-making process. The Trust was not required to select the placement preferred by the claimant’s mother or to conclude that residential care was the only rational option.
3. The proposed minimum of 28 hours’ one-to-one support was rational. It was to be provided alongside 24-hour support and was subject to review, including an increase if experience showed that more support was required. The court rejected the contention that the Trust had to maintain the existing 55 hours of one-to-one care.
4. The Trust’s belief that the independence available through supported living was in the claimant’s best interests could not be categorised as irrational. Differences in continuity of care, staffing arrangements, or the number of residents did not make the decision unlawful.
5. Fairness did not require the claimant to be represented at the panel meeting which considered the further expert material. In any event, the court was satisfied that the panel would have reached the same conclusion.
6. The Trust was entitled to defer consideration of the complaint because it duplicated the grounds of the judicial review proceedings. Article 8 added nothing: the claimant had to leave his existing accommodation, and a rational choice of replacement accommodation was not rendered unlawful merely because it might prove unsuitable or provide less continuity of care.
7. The application was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs in the usual form applicable to a claimant receiving Community Legal Service funding. Permission to appeal was refused.