Grabham & Ors, R (on the application of) v Northamptonshire County Council

A local authority may revise community-care eligibility criteria and reorganise respite services to address genuine budgetary pressures, provided it follows a lawful decision-making process. Individual assessments are not legally required before a policy decision is made. A reliable overall assessment may be based on representative sampling and extrapolation, followed by individual assessment before any person’s services change. Consultation need not achieve perfection, but it must be responsible, sufficiently accessible and conscientiously taken into account. Properly regulated voluntary-sector provision does not, without evidence, establish an increased risk requiring a different decision. A decision is not predetermined merely because earlier budget documents or proposals point towards it.

Forty disabled adults sought permission to judicially review Northamptonshire County Council’s decisions to raise the threshold for community-care eligibility and to close two respite-care centres, reducing traditional respite beds. The claimants alleged inadequate financial and risk assessment, defective consultation, predetermination and failure to consider alternatives. The Council relied on its substantial budget deficit, consultation materials, transitional arrangements, representative assessments and alternative provision through health and voluntary-sector providers. The central question was whether any arguable public-law error justified permission to proceed.

1. Permission refused. The court found no arguable illegality in either decision-making process.
2. The Council was entitled to review eligibility criteria in the light of its resources and budget cycle. It was also entitled to consider closing under-used and outdated respite facilities and developing alternative provision.
3. The decisions had not been predetermined. They had to be assessed in the round, without undue weight being given to earlier budget comments. Material changes to the proposals, including transitional arrangements, delayed closure and revised use of one centre, demonstrated that the decisions remained open until the Cabinet resolutions.
4. The consultation processes were full and detailed. There were shortcomings in consulting some adults with learning disabilities, but perfection was unattainable. The Council had acted responsibly, achieved consultation to a tolerable extent, and placed the results before the decision-makers. Expert assistance and the attendance of parents or carers were not indispensable features of a valid consultation.
5. There was no legal obligation to carry out individual assessments before deciding to alter eligibility criteria or close the centres. The Council could use representative samples to assess likely effects and extrapolate the results. Individual reassessments were required before changing any person’s care package, with transitional arrangements and complaint and ombudsman procedures available.
6. The reliance on voluntary and community-sector providers did not itself establish increased risk. Those providers were subject to contractual requirements, training standards, checks and monitoring. The claimants therefore had no tenable argument that the Council had failed to assess a material additional risk.

The judgment describes earlier permission proceedings concerning the Council’s budget proposals. Interim relief was initially granted and later varied by Mr Justice Forbes. Mr Justice Beatson subsequently refused permission after the Council accepted that service reductions required consultation. In the present proceedings, permission was refused.