Robson & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Salford City Council (Rev 1)

The claimants, both adults with severe disabilities, sought judicial review of Salford City Council's high‑level decision to cease providing a direct specialist passenger transport service through its Passenger Transport Unit (PTU) and to replace it with individually arranged transport under a revised "criteria for transport" policy. The principal legal issues were whether (a) the decision breached the council's duty under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to make arrangements for travel facilities or assistance, (b) services were withdrawn without lawful reassessments, (c) the decision was taken in the absence of lawful consultation at common law, and (d) the council breached the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The judge held that the challenged decision was a lawful high‑level policy decision about how the council would arrange to fulfil its s.2 CSDPA obligations and that whether particular arrangements complied with s.2 depended on individual arrangements for individual service users. The council had carried out personal transport assessments, a consultation exercise and an equality impact assessment; read as a whole these were not so deficient as to render the decision unlawful. The consultation material could have been clearer about the effect on the PTU but the consultation overall was not so unfair as to vitiate the decision. The public sector equality duty had been considered and complied with in substance. The claim was dismissed.

Background and parties: The claimants, Michael Robson and Jennifer Barrett, are adults with severe disabilities living in Salford who used the council's PTU to attend adult day centres. They challenged the council's decision (approved by mayor and cabinet and confirmed at full council) to cease direct provision via the PTU and to adopt an individualised transport policy, as part of savings in the community, health and social care budget. The defendant was Salford City Council.

Procedural posture: The claim was issued on 28 August 2014 together with an application for interim relief. The council agreed to maintain the PTU until 1 November 2014 pending the proceedings. Permission to proceed with judicial review was granted on the papers on 10 September 2014 and the substantive hearing occurred on 15 October 2014; judgment was handed down on 23 October 2014.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimants sought judicial review of the decision to discontinue the PTU service and replace it with alternative, individually arranged transport. They argued for unlawful withdrawal without reassessment, breach of the duty under s.2 CSDPA, procedural unfairness in consultation and breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010). Interim relief had sought to prevent immediate closure of the PTU.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the council's high‑level decision unlawfully breached s.2 CSDPA or required, before adoption, reassessments of all affected service users;
• Whether the consultation process was unlawful at common law, taking into account established principles on consultation;
• Whether the council complied with the public sector equality duty under s.149 Equality Act 2010 and related guidance.

Court's reasoning and conclusions: The court treated the decision as a high‑level policy choice about means of meeting statutory obligations rather than an immediate withdrawal of services from individuals. On s.2 CSDPA the judge concluded that the statutory duty is to make arrangements for facilities or assistance (not to provide them only by a particular method) and that compliance must be judged by reference to individual arrangements; the council had undertaken individual transport assessments and was in the process of arranging alternatives for most users. The claimants needed to show the decision was irrational on the basis of the evidence base or that no rational authority could conclude it could meet s.2 obligations; they had not done so.

On consultation the judge applied established authorities on proper consultation and concluded that the consultation materials could have been clearer about the effect on the PTU but, judged overall, the consultation was not so unfair or misleading as to invalidate the decision.

On the public sector equality duty the judge examined the equality impact assessment and the overall process, concluding the council had gathered relevant information, identified common concerns, proposed mitigation, and had due regard to the needs of disabled people; the duty was continuing and was to be applied in individual decisions. The judge dismissed the claim. He noted that if he had found procedural or equality defects the appropriate remedy would have been quashing the decision to allow proper retaking, rather than prescribing a particular method of fulfilling s.2.

The claim is dismissed. The judge held that the decision to end direct delivery by the PTU and to adopt individualised transport arrangements was a lawful high‑level policy decision; the council had undertaken individual transport assessments, a consultation exercise and an equality impact assessment which, read as a whole, did not render the decision unlawful. The claimants did not show the decision was irrational or that the council could not meet its duties under s.2 CSDPA by alternative arrangements.