Savva, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

A local authority may use a Resource Allocation System as an indicative starting point when setting a personal budget, provided it does not treat the resulting figure as conclusive and remains satisfied that the budget meets the individual’s assessed needs.

Although no statute expressly required reasons, procedural fairness required a clear, evidence-based explanation of how the personal budget had been calculated. A later care or support plan could not retrospectively provide adequate reasons for the budget decision. The absence of reasons justified quashing the decision. The high threshold for irrationality was not met, and the assessment of a personal budget did not engage Article 6.

The claimant, an elderly woman receiving community care services, challenged the defendant local authority’s decision to maintain her personal budget at £170.45 per week. She argued that the Resource Allocation System was unlawful, that the authority had failed to give adequate reasons, and that the unchanged budget was irrational despite an increased assessment score.

The claim was determined at a rolled-up hearing. The court granted permission and considered the statutory duties to assess and meet eligible care needs, the use of direct payments, the common-law requirements of procedural fairness, and the relevance of Article 6.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded in relation to the reasons challenge. The decision of the panel dated 21 December 2009 was quashed and the panel was required to reconsider the claimant’s personal budget and give reasons. The court refused a declaration that the Resource Allocation System was itself an unsound basis for determining personal budgets.
2. Resource Allocation System. The statutory scheme required assessment of need and, once the relevant duty arose, performance of the duty without reliance on lack of resources as an excuse. The authority could nevertheless use a relative, non-linear Resource Allocation System as an indicative tool and starting point. It had not unlawfully treated the indicative figure as a final cap. The panel had considered the claimant’s needs in the round and increased the indicative figure.
3. Reasons. The absence of an express statutory duty to give reasons did not resolve the issue. In this context, procedural fairness required a precise and clear decision explaining, on an evidential basis, why the allocated budget was sufficient to meet the individual’s assessed needs. The bare statement that the existing allocation would remain was inadequate. Evidence disclosed during the litigation and reasons appearing later in a support plan could not cure the failure to explain the decision when made.
4. Irrationality. The claimant had not shown that no reasonable panel could have maintained the budget at the same level. The rationality challenge therefore failed, although the absence of reasons remained unlawful.
5. Article 6. The court considered that personal budgets and their use fell within social welfare provision. The relevant discretionary and evaluative judgments did not concern a civil right for the purposes of Article 6. The result was reached on common-law procedural fairness, so no final determination of the Article 6 submissions was necessary.