Barrett, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

A public authority’s decision to stop funding an organisation does not necessarily engage equality duties. The duties are engaged where the decision substantively determines that services affecting disabled people will be cut, discontinued or significantly changed. The decision-maker itself must have due regard to the statutory duty; reliance on officers’ consideration alone is insufficient, although a fair summary of an equality assessment may suffice. A lawful consultation need not address every prior funding decision or compare proposed services in detail, provided its scope is fair and responses are conscientiously considered. An equality assessment need not resolve every representation or resemble a reasoned decision, but it must identify and understand the relevant benefits, losses and differences in service provision.

The claimant, a person with learning disabilities and user of People First Lambeth, challenged Lambeth’s decisions to end funding and contracts for services provided by the organisation, and subsequently to commission a user involvement worker and develop alternative services. People First was run by people with learning disabilities and provided self-advocacy, user involvement and related support.

The challenges relied principally on the disability equality duty under Disability Discrimination Act 1995, section 49A, and the public sector equality duty under Equality Act 2010, section 149. The claimant also alleged unlawful consultation and abuse of process. The central issues were whether the budget decision required prior due regard to the equality duty, whether the later consultation was fair, and whether Lambeth’s equality assessment was sufficient.

1. The challenge to the January or February 2011 decision was substantively a challenge to the decision which caused People First’s services largely to cease or change significantly. Stopping funding to the organisation itself did not necessarily engage the equality duties. The duties were plainly engaged by the budget decision because it determined the type and level of services to be cut or reprovided for people with learning disabilities.

2. The budget approved a detailed saving of £125,000 and did not preserve sufficient flexibility for later decisions on the precise implementation of that cut. It therefore constituted an exercise of the Council’s functions engaging the equality duty. The Council could not rely merely on the fact that officers had considered the duty. The decision-maker itself had to have due regard. A fair summary of an equality impact assessment might suffice, but it had to cover the essential features of how the duty was being fulfilled.

3. The budget decision was unlawful because the Council had not itself had due regard to the disability equality duty. The decision had, however, been set aside by 21 April 2011. No effective relief was therefore available in respect of it.

4. The later decision was lawful. There was no promise or legitimate expectation that consultation would cover the cessation of People First’s funding. Lambeth was entitled to define the consultation as concerning the services needed by people with learning disabilities. The consultation supplied sufficient information for reasonably informed responses, and the responses were properly considered.

5. The equality assessment supporting the later decision adequately addressed the new services, the differences from People First’s provision, the benefits and losses, and the mitigation proposed. An assessment need not provide detailed explanations, resolve every issue raised, or constitute a reasoned decision letter. It was sufficient that the relevant features necessary for due regard were properly understood. The challenge to the later decision was dismissed.

6. The claim was not an abuse of process. The claimant could bring proceedings in her own right as a service user and person with learning disabilities, notwithstanding that she was also a director of People First. The claim was dismissed overall.