W, R (on the application of) v Lincolnshire County Council

Under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the authority must assess the disabled person’s needs, decide whether arrangements are necessary to meet them, and provide those arrangements once necessity is established. Judicial review examines whether the authority’s decision has a rational basis on the material available, while recognising the expertise of social-care professionals. A care plan may lawfully provide targeted support and respite rather than the full package recommended by an assessor, provided it reasonably addresses assessed needs and is kept under review. A disabled child’s parent may remain the primary carer where that relationship is important and no compelling reason requires removal. Article 8 does not require more where the care plan is rational and proportionate.

The claimant, a 17-year-old disabled child, challenged Lincolnshire County Council’s care plan by judicial review. She argued that the Council had acted irrationally and had breached Article 8 by rejecting an independent assessor’s recommendation for two carers to be present around the clock and by retaining her mother as primary carer.

The Council’s plan provided 21 hours of weekly personal care, eight hours of support for activities outside school, and respite care. The issues were whether the Council could rationally regard that provision as sufficient to meet the claimant’s assessed needs and whether Article 8 required the more extensive arrangements sought.

1. The claim was dismissed. Both grounds of challenge failed. Permission to appeal was refused because no important point of legal principle arose; the case was determined on its particular facts.
2. Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 involves three stages: assessment of the individual’s needs; satisfaction that arrangements are necessary to meet those needs; and, once necessity is established, a duty to make the arrangements. The dispute concerned the second stage.
3. The Council had a rational basis for retaining the claimant’s mother as primary carer. The mother-child bond was especially important in a disabled child’s intimate care and distress. The evidence did not show that the mother was unsuitable, and compelling reasons would have been needed before removing her from that role. The Council was entitled to rely on professional judgment, the claimant’s attachment to her mother, the difficulty of major changes in routine, proper training, and monitoring of the plan.
4. The Council was also entitled to conclude, on the material then available, that 21 hours of targeted support and eight hours of respite were sufficient. The claimant’s history showed that one skilled person could physically provide care, but it was unreasonable for one person to provide it continuously. The care plan therefore had to provide substantial support and reasonable respite. The Council could take account of the quality and training of carers, review arrangements as circumstances developed, and the finite nature of public resources.
5. Article 8 protected private and family life and could involve positive obligations towards disabled persons, including participation in community life and access to essential social and recreational activities. However, it added little to the statutory requirements in this case. Since the Council’s decision was rational and proportionate, the Article 8 challenge also failed.

The judgment records that permission to appeal was refused. The claimant was directed to seek permission from the Court of Appeal. No later appellate decision is stated.