S, R (on the application of) v Coventry City Council

Section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 is concerned with a present need for care and attention, not merely accommodation, subsistence or medical treatment. The concept permits sensible flexibility: authorities may address an existing need before it becomes substantially worse, but a merely prospective risk does not suffice.

Where immigration-status provisions clearly determine eligibility, a local authority need not undertake an academic assessment under section 21 first. A further assessment is unnecessary where the evidence shows no present need for care and attention and no sufficient risk that refusing support would breach Convention rights.

The claimant, an unsuccessful asylum seeker from Chad, had previously received accommodation and financial support from Coventry City Council while undergoing treatment for lymphoma. He challenged decisions refusing further welfare assistance and care, declining to reassess his needs, and requiring him to leave his accommodation.

The parties agreed that the permission application should be treated as a rolled-up hearing. The central issues were whether the claimant had a present or sufficiently anticipated need for care and attention under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, whether a further assessment was required, and how Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 affected the sequence of decision-making.

1. Disposition. Permission was granted, but the substantive application was dismissed and judgment was given for the defendant. The court declined permission to appeal on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success on the section 21 point.
2. Meaning of care and attention. Applying the reasoning in R(M) v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52, care and attention means looking after a person by doing something which he cannot, or should not be expected to, do for himself. It requires something beyond accommodation and the means of survival. Medical care alone is insufficient.
3. Present and future needs. The primary focus is on present needs. There is sensible flexibility where a present need for some care exists, allowing intervention before that need becomes much worse. The evidence did not establish any present need for care. The medical and physiotherapy reports indicated that the claimant could cope with normal daily activities, while the evidence of a possible future relapse did not identify sufficient severity, timescale or urgency.
4. Sequence of statutory consideration. The authority was not required to determine the section 21 issue before considering Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Where the Schedule 3 eligibility question is clear, requiring a prior section 21 assessment could involve a wholly academic exercise. The court applied the approach discussed in R(N) v Coventry City Council [2008] EWHC 2786 (Admin), R(N) v Lambeth LBC [2006] EWHC 3427 (Admin) and R(AW) v London Borough of Croydon [2005] EWHC 2950 (Admin).
5. Convention rights. In light of the claimant’s exhausted asylum process and ability to return to Chad, and having regard to R(N) v Coventry City Council, it was very unlikely that refusal of support would engage article 3. The court therefore did not need finally to determine the Schedule 3 article 3 issue.

The judgment itself does not state a prior appellate decision in this litigation. The application was heard as a rolled-up permission and merits hearing. Permission was granted, but the claim was dismissed.