Ireneschild, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

A community-care assessment is unlawful where the authority fails to consider material evidence about risks, independence, accommodation and carers. The assessment must address both immediate and longer-term risks under the applicable guidance. A housing assessment and a community-care assessment apply different statutory regimes, so a finding of urgent rehousing need does not automatically establish an eligible community-care need. However, the housing finding remains a relevant consideration. Where an authority relies materially on adverse conclusions affecting the assessment, fairness may require that those conclusions be disclosed to the service user for comment.

The claimant sought permission to challenge Lambeth’s continuing failures concerning community-care services, assessment of her accommodation and care needs, and suitable interim accommodation. The authority produced a further community-care assessment after proceedings had begun. The central issue was whether that assessment lawfully concluded that the claimant had no eligible need arising from her accommodation. The court heard the permission application and substantive challenge together on this issue. A separate direct-payment issue was adjourned for reconsideration by the authority.

1. The assessment was unlawful. The authority failed to take account of material findings in its own occupational therapist’s report, including the claimant’s risk of falls, the risks arising from the existing accommodation, the need for urgent review of manual handling, and the substantial risks identified across several eligibility categories.
2. The FACS guidance required the authority to assess and prioritise needs by reference to short- and longer-term risks to independence. It also required consideration of autonomy, health and safety, daily routines, family and community life, and risks faced by carers. The assessment failed to address essential questions required by that guidance.
3. The housing allocation scheme and the community-care regime served different purposes. Failure to qualify for emergency rehousing did not determine eligibility under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Nor did an award of 25 housing points automatically require a finding of substantial community-care need. Nevertheless, the award was a relevant consideration which the assessor had to address.
4. Fairness required disclosure of the adverse conclusions in the housing medical report before they were relied upon in the community-care assessment. The claimant should have had an opportunity to correct or explain the conclusions, since different findings might have resulted.
5. Leave to apply for judicial review was granted and the application was allowed in relation to the August 2006 assessment. Consequential directions were adjourned. The direct-payment issue was adjourned on the authority’s undertaking to reconsider and decide it within 28 days.

The judgment is a first-instance decision. It records that Collins J granted permission to amend the claim form and directed that permission and the substantive application be heard together.