Walford, R (On the Application Of) v Worchestershire County Council

For the property disregard under paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 4 to the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992, “home” means a person’s only or main home. The inquiry is both qualitative and quantitative. It concerns the person’s physical and emotional attachment to, and degree and nature of occupation of, the property. Physical presence is neither necessary nor sufficient.

A local authority may review a disregard decision whenever circumstances change. It must apply the correct test and consider relevant evidence relating to the period under review. The matter remains one for the authority’s judgment and evaluation.

The claimant challenged the defendant local authority’s decision of 11 January 2013 to reverse a previous decision disregarding her elderly mother’s property, Sunnydene, when assessing the mother’s liability for residential care charges. The claimant, aged over 60, contended that she occupied Sunnydene as her home and therefore fell within paragraph 2(1)(b)(ii) of Schedule 4 to the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992.

The challenge alleged that the authority had applied the wrong legal test, failed to consider relevant evidence, and relied on irrelevant matters. The central issues were the meaning of “home”, the scope of the authority’s power to review a disregard, and whether the decision-making process was lawful.

1. Claim succeeded. The decision contained in the letter of 11 January 2013 was quashed and the issue was remitted to the defendant for redetermination.
2. Paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 4 to the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 requires property to be disregarded where it is occupied in whole or in part as the only or main home of a qualifying relative. “Home” denotes a place to which a person has both physical and emotional attachment. Whether premises are occupied as a home requires a qualitative and quantitative assessment. Physical presence is neither necessary nor sufficient.
3. The authority had applied an incorrect test by focusing on actual occupation, permanent residence, full occupation, or whether Sunnydene was the claimant’s sole residence. It had also treated the review as confined to circumstances existing when the claimant’s mother entered residential care.
4. A decision whether to disregard property may be reviewed whenever there is a change in circumstances. The authority was required to consider whether the claimant had occupied Sunnydene as her home after her mother entered care, as well as the evidence submitted in November 2012. It had failed to do so.
5. The authority was entitled to consider evidence bearing on the claimant’s occupation, including voting and council-tax arrangements, inspection evidence, and statements that the claimant’s mother lived alone. The weight of such evidence was for the authority, subject to Wednesbury irrationality. A comparative investigation of the claimant’s London flat was not required, although consideration of other properties may be appropriate in some cases.
6. The matter was remitted because the authority had to exercise its judgment on the weight of the relevant factors using the correct test and considering changed circumstances. The court declined to make the requested declaration that Sunnydene must be disregarded.