F & Ors, R (on the application of) v Wirral Borough Council

Judicial review is concerned with legality, not with prescribing the detail of individual community-care assessments or care plans where no specific unmet eligible need or error of law is established. Statutory guidance issued under section 7(1) of the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 should generally be followed, with departure justified by good reason. A local authority must assess presenting needs, evaluate risks to independence against its eligibility criteria, and provide for eligible needs. However, deficiencies in form-filling do not themselves establish unlawfulness. Where the complaint concerns the adequacy of provision or assessment detail, the statutory complaints procedure is ordinarily the appropriate remedy.

Twenty-five claimants sought judicial review of Wirral Borough Council’s social-services assessments, care plans and funding decisions. They alleged failures under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the Fair Access to Care Services guidance, including failure to identify presenting and eligible needs, assess risks to independence, and fund support supplied by Salisbury Independent Living.

The claim initially alleged that assessments had not been carried out at all. Most claimants had in fact been assessed or reviewed. The pleaded case later shifted towards detailed criticisms of individual documents and alleged failures to review care plans. The central issues were whether those matters raised an arguable public-law error and whether judicial review was appropriate where statutory complaints procedures were available.

1. Claim dismissed. The abandoned argument based on R (Heffernan) v Sheffield City Council did not require determination. Once that point was abandoned, no properly formulated issue of law remained which required judicial review.
2. Under section 7(1) of the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970, a local authority must act under the Secretary of State’s general guidance. The guidance is not wholly optional. It should be followed unless the authority has an admissible and good reason to depart from it. The court accepted the approach in R v Islington LBC, ex p Rixon and distinguished the different statutory language considered in R (B and H) v Hackney LBC.
3. The FACS framework requires the authority to identify presenting needs, evaluate the resulting risks to independence, and determine eligibility by reference to its criteria. It does not require every box in an assessment form to be completed, nor does an omitted completion date, uncompleted mental-health section, or similar formal defect automatically render an assessment unlawful. The relevant question is whether a presenting or eligible need was actually overlooked and consequently left unmet.
4. The court rejected the contention that an assessment and care plan operate as a formal instrument which must be perfectly completed before services can be provided. The evidence showed no claimant with a properly eligible need left without provision because of a deficiency in form-filling. The court could not determine in judicial review proceedings the boundary between services funded under the Supporting People arrangements, services supplied by Salisbury Independent Living, and other eligible community-care needs.
5. Complaints about the adequacy or detail of assessments and care plans, absent illegality, should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory complaints procedure. The court relied on Pulhofer v Hillingdon LBC, R (on the application of L) v Barking & Dagenham LBC and Lambeth LBC v Ireneschild. The application to amend the claim to add an alleged failure to conduct annual reviews was refused because it was raised very late, was unsupported by adequate evidence, and caused procedural prejudice.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment records that permission to apply was granted by Mr Justice Plender on 3 February 2009. The claim was dismissed by the High Court (Administrative Court).