S (A Child), R (on the application of) v Plymouth City Council

A local authority’s assessment of a child in need must result in a realistic plan of action, including the services to be provided. The plan must contain sufficient practical detail to identify what will happen, who will provide it, and how it will be implemented and reviewed.

For respite care, an authority should identify suitable carers and address the proposed frequency, duration and reasonable cost of care. For accommodation, it must explore realistic alternatives with sufficient specificity, including available properties, costs, housing benefit and any funding shortfall. A housing authority cannot bypass its allocation scheme to give an applicant additional priority.

The claimant was an autistic child in need whose mother sought judicial review of Plymouth City Council’s arrangements for respite care and accommodation. The claim alleged that the authority had failed to comply with its duties under Children Act 1989 section 17 and the associated assessment framework.

By the hearing, the authority had produced a core assessment and child in need plan. It accepted the need for respite care and that the family required three-bedroom accommodation. The issues were whether the proposals constituted a realistic plan of action, and whether the housing department’s allocation scheme prevented the authority from giving additional priority.

1. Declarations granted in part. Permission was granted to the extent necessary to grant declarations that the authority’s assessments did not yet provide a realistic plan of action concerning respite care and accommodation. The remainder of the claim was dismissed.
2. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, the authority owed duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child in need and to promote upbringing within the family by providing services appropriate to the child’s needs. Section 17(6) permitted services to include accommodation and assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash.
3. The assessment framework issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 did not have the full force of statute, but was to be complied with unless exceptional local circumstances justified variation. An assessment had to lead to an analysis of need, identification of required intervention and a realistic plan specifying services, responsibility, timing and review.
4. The respite proposal was inadequate. The authority had identified an hourly payment but had not identified suitable carers or addressed, with the mother and prospective carers, the frequency, duration and reasonable rate of respite. Payment in the abstract did not constitute a realistic plan.
5. The housing department could not lawfully give additional priority outside its allocation scheme: section 167(8) of the Housing Act 1996 required accommodation to be allocated in accordance with that scheme. No unlawfulness in the mother’s treatment under the scheme had been shown. However, the social services proposal for private accommodation was insufficiently specific. The authority needed to investigate actual properties, rental costs, housing benefit and any shortfall it might bridge, and produce a fully costed alternative.
6. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to assessment if not agreed, with detailed assessment of publicly funded costs.

The judgment was a first-instance decision of the Administrative Court. The claim had been issued in April 2008, and Underhill J ordered a rolled-up hearing on 18 July 2008.