Deeming, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council

A pathway plan for a care leaver must identify the young person’s needs and specify what is to be done, by whom and within what timescale. The responsible authority retains ultimate responsibility and cannot leave important matters to the hoped-for assistance of another service without securing and defining that assistance. The assessment must address the individual’s specific health, support, financial and practical needs. A personal adviser’s suitability is fact-sensitive. Physical distance does not necessarily make an appointment unlawful where the young person has adequate local support and prefers limited contact, but suitability must be kept under review. A deficient plan need not be quashed where a declaration identifying its deficiencies provides the appropriate remedy.

The claimant, a young person formerly in care, sought judicial review of Birmingham City Council’s assessment and pathway plan under the leaving-care legislation. He alleged deficiencies concerning his health, friendships, practical skills, finances, contingency arrangements and personal support. He also challenged the appointment of a personal adviser based in Birmingham, about 150 miles away.

The Council relied on continuing local support from London Care Solutions and on the claimant’s stated preference for contact with a particular outreach worker. The court considered whether the plan complied with the statutory regulations and guidance, whether the personal adviser was suitable, and what remedy should follow.

1. Personal adviser. The challenge to the appointment of Miss Coppola failed. The functions of a personal adviser under Regulation 12 include advice and support, participation in the pathway plan, liaison, co-ordination and keeping informed about the young person’s welfare. The guidance recognises that the adviser may be a peripheral figure and that contact with an adult care leaver may occur by telephone or email. Distance is not decisive. The relevant question depends on the young person’s needs, wishes and available local support. Here, substantial support was provided locally by Mr Crafter, and the claimant preferred limited contact. The Council had acted lawfully, subject to keeping the appointment under review if circumstances changed.
2. Pathway plan. The plan was not fundamentally defective, but it failed in important respects to meet the required level of individual assessment and operational detail. The Council had not sufficiently identified the claimant’s health problems or the needs arising from them. It had not adequately assessed the support required to develop friendships or determined the number of support hours needed.
3. The plan also required greater specificity about practical skills, financial needs and contingency arrangements. It should identify the responsible person or service, the action required and the relevant timetable. The authority could not simply rely on Bromley Aftercare Service or London Care Solutions without identifying the assistance sought, securing agreement where necessary and explaining what would happen if assistance was unavailable.
4. The duty to assess and plan remained the Council’s responsibility. It could not determine support needs by reference merely to a service provider’s failure to produce evidence of the support delivered, or by assuming that another authority or service would resolve the problem.
5. The court declined to quash the plan. The Council was considering representations and could amend the document. A declaration identifying the deficiencies was sufficient. The application therefore succeeded in part. The claimant was awarded two-thirds of his costs.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.