DM, R (on the application of) v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

A local authority must identify and assess a disabled person’s relevant needs. Once such a need is established under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the authority must make arrangements to meet it and cannot refuse solely because of limited resources. An assessment is irrational where it ignores a known practical requirement, such as transport necessary to access an identified service. Respite provision must be assessed by reference to the person’s needs, rather than the authority’s existing facilities. A decision on direct payments must apply the statutory regulatory criteria and give intelligible reasons explaining what was decided and how and why it was reached.

The claimant, a disabled child represented by his father and litigation friend, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority’s decision to close his case. The challenge concerned transport to a specialist leisure facility, respite care, and direct payments. The claimant relied on statutory duties, irrationality, defective reasoning and inadequate reasons. The central issue was whether the authority had lawfully assessed the claimant’s needs and applied the statutory framework governing the services sought.

1. Transport. The care plan identified the need for access to community facilities but did not expressly identify transport as a need. The authority knew that transport to Leisure for All was required, that the claimant presented serious behavioural difficulties, and that temporary transport arrangements were in place. Ignoring that live issue was irrational in the public law sense and probably unlawful because the authority had not considered whether transport was a need requiring provision under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. If the need had been identified and refused on resource grounds, that would also have been unlawful.
2. Respite care. The carer’s assessment did not clearly assess whether day or residential respite was needed. It instead recorded an uncertain agreement and appeared to reject residential respite because suitable facilities were unavailable. That was impermissible. Where residential respite was assessed as necessary, the authority could be required to purchase it as a service.
3. Direct payments. The reasons given stated that payments had been agreed but could not be established because the claimant’s father was not considered an appropriate administrator. Those reasons did not apply the test in regulation 4 of the Community Care Services for Carers and Children’s Services (Direct Payments) (England) Regulations 2009. Where reasons were required, they had to explain intelligibly what decision had been made and how and why it had been reached. Later explanations could not cure the defective decision-making process.
4. The decision to close the claimant’s case was quashed. The care plan and carer’s assessment were remitted to the authority for lawful reconsideration and reassessment. The court’s function was supervisory and it could not undertake the assessments itself.