Lambeth London Borough Council v Ireneschild

A community care assessor must consider material which is so obviously relevant that disregarding it would be perverse. Relevant material may reasonably be considered through an intervening internal report, depending on the circumstances.

Compliance with statutory community care guidance is assessed in substance and in the operational context. An assessment may lawfully conclude that acknowledged risks are acceptable. A maximum award under a housing allocation scheme does not compel an equivalent finding of eligible community care need.

Fairness may require disclosure of significant, inconsistent information obtained from a third party. It does not ordinarily require consultation on draft conclusions drawn from the service user’s own information, particularly where the assessment remains reviewable through a statutory complaints process.

The respondent was a severely disabled secure tenant living in a maisonette with external and internal stairs. The appellant local authority accepted that stair-free accommodation was desirable, but its August 2006 community care assessment found no eligible need arising from her accommodation.

Lloyd Jones J held the assessment unlawful. He quashed it and ordered a reassessment. His reasons included an alleged failure to consider an occupational therapist’s report, non-compliance with statutory guidance, inadequate consideration of a maximum housing-points award, and procedural unfairness.

The authority appealed. The central issues were whether the assessment had considered the relevant reports and risks, complied with the Fair Access to Care Services guidance, properly treated the housing assessment, and afforded the respondent procedural fairness.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Hallett LJ, giving the leading judgment, held that the community care assessment was lawful on all four challenged grounds. Sir Peter Gibson agreed. Dyson LJ agreed and gave additional reasons.

2. The authority was obliged to consider the occupational therapist’s recent report because its conclusions were obviously material. A public body may nevertheless consider relevant material indirectly through a lawful chain of internal analysis. On the evidence, the assessor had considered the occupational therapist’s conclusions through the detailed intervening housing-medical report and through the authority’s records. The assessor was entitled to prefer the intervening report’s analysis of the risk of falling.

3. The assessment complied in substance with the Fair Access to Care Services guidance issued under section 7 of the Local Authority and Social Services Act 1970. It addressed the respondent’s mobility, autonomy, risk of falling, dependence on her sons, and risks to those sons. The absence of express statements about every possible consequence did not make the assessment unlawful. Operational social-work assessments should not be subjected to excessive textual analysis. The authority could lawfully regard the identified risks as small and acceptable.

4. The maximum medical-points award under the housing allocation scheme did not require a finding of substantial community care need. Housing and community care assessments serve different purposes. The assessor recorded the award, formed her own view, and was entitled to decide what weight it carried.

5. The principle in R (Begum) v LB Tower Hamlets [2002] HLR 70 did not require advance disclosure. The disputed information was derived principally from the respondent during an internal assessment process, rather than from an independent third party. There was no shared assumption that she had a significant history of falls. The assessment was capable of later review, and an aggrieved service user could use the statutory complaints procedure. Fairness therefore required no additional opportunity to comment before completion.

6. The order declaring and quashing the assessment was displaced.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the local authority’s appeal unanimously and displaced the Administrative Court’s conclusion that the community care assessment was unlawful.
• Administrative Court: Lloyd Jones J held on 8 September 2006 that the August 2006 assessment was unlawful. On 27 September 2006 he quashed it and ordered a fresh assessment within 28 days, subject to a stay pending appeal.