Robson, R (on the application of) v Salford City Council

A local authority may close an internal service-delivery unit without first conducting full community care reassessments where the decision concerns the organisational means of meeting statutory needs and does not itself withdraw the underlying service. It must nevertheless obtain enough information to establish that lawful alternatives are feasible.

Consultation is judged fairly and realistically as a whole. Incomplete documentation does not necessarily make consultation unlawful where consultees understand the proposed practical change and the material does not convey a positively misleading impression.

Compliance with the public sector equality duty is fact-sensitive. The authority must obtain sufficient information and give proper, conscientious consideration to adverse effects and mitigation, but neither a formal impact assessment nor unlimited investigation is invariably required.

The appellants were severely disabled adults who travelled to day centres using Salford City Council’s Passenger Transport Unit. The Council decided to close that unit as part of a cost-saving programme and to meet users’ transport needs through individual alternative arrangements.

The Administrative Court dismissed their judicial review claim in [2014] EWHC 3481 (Admin). The appellants challenged that decision on three grounds: the absence of full individual community care reassessments before closure; the alleged unfairness of the consultation; and alleged non-compliance with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The central issue was whether the Council could lawfully take the organisational closure decision on the information, consultation and equality analysis available, while leaving the adequacy of each user’s eventual transport arrangements to individual decision-making.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Council’s decision concerned the organisational means by which it would meet its statutory transport obligations. Closing its directly operated Passenger Transport Unit did not prevent it from providing an equivalent service through third parties or, if necessary, retaining some residual provision.

2. The closure was not equivalent to withdrawing a community care service. The principle concerning reassessment upon withdrawal of services in R v Gloucestershire County Council, ex parte Barry [1997] AC 584 was therefore not engaged. Full reassessments of community care needs were not required before the high-level decision. Individual transport assessments were required before determining each user’s arrangements, but challenges to the adequacy of those individual decisions were outside these proceedings.

3. The transport assessments were sufficient to show that alternatives were feasible for a substantial majority. Nothing in them suggested that closure was unreasonable. Applying the principle in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014, the Council had taken the steps reasonably required to acquaint itself with the relevant information.

4. The consultation documentation gave an incomplete account because it did not state clearly that the Passenger Transport Unit itself would close. Nevertheless, consultation had to be assessed realistically as a whole. Users and carers understood that the assessments were intended to determine whether the existing transport could be replaced by alternatives in individual cases. Unlike the consultation in R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 56, the documentation did not convey a positively misleading impression that relevant alternatives were immaterial. The consultation was fair.

5. The Council complied with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Its individual assessments and lawful consultation provided sufficient information for the duty of inquiry. Although the Community Impact Assessment was imperfect, read as a whole and alongside the wider decision-making process it demonstrated proper regard to adverse effects upon disabled adults, their differing needs and possible mitigation. The duty did not require a formal impact assessment, analysis at the level demanded by the appellants, or investigation without practical limit.

6. Richards LJ gave the judgment. Treacy LJ and Newey J agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2015] EWCA Civ 6 , dismissed the appellants’ appeal on the assessment, consultation and public sector equality duty issues.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: In [2014] EWHC 3481 (Admin) , HHJ Stephen Davies, sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed the judicial review claim challenging the Council’s decision to close its Passenger Transport Unit.