R (Robson) v Salford City Council

This appeal concerned a local authority decision to close its Passenger Transport Unit (PTU) and make alternative transport arrangements for disabled adults. The court considered three issues: (1) whether comprehensive individual community care assessments were required before making the high‑level decision to close the PTU (assessment issue); (2) whether the consultation was lawful and not misleading (consultation issue); and (3) whether the council complied with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (PSED issue).

The court held that the decision was a legitimate high‑level policy decision about delivery arrangements under s.2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and that the transport assessments undertaken (personal meetings with tick‑box forms and follow up) were sufficient to show the feasibility of alternative arrangements; there was no requirement to carry out full community care reassessments of all users before taking the high‑level decision. The consultation, although not as explicit as it might have been about closing the PTU, was not so misleading or unfair as to render the process unlawful; consultees were sufficiently informed about the proposed change of approach to transport arrangements. Finally, the council had had due regard to equality considerations under s.149 EA 2010: the Community Impact Assessment together with the individual transport assessments and the consultation provided an adequate evidential basis to identify and address adverse impacts.

This is an appeal from the Administrative Court (HHJ Stephen Davies [2014] EWHC 3481 (Admin)) challenging Salford City Council's decision of 30 June 2014 to close its PTU, part of a package of savings intended to realise about 600,000 per year. The claimants were two severely disabled adults (by litigation friends) who used the PTU service. They sought judicial review on grounds that the council had failed to: (i) carry out adequate individual community care assessments before making the high‑level decision; (ii) consult fairly and not mislead consultees about the true proposal; and (iii) comply with the public sector equality duty in s.149 Equality Act 2010.

Procedural path: the High Court dismissed the claim (HHJ Stephen Davies). Permission to appeal was granted by Bean LJ; the Court of Appeal heard the appeal and dismissed it.

Issues framed by the court: (i) whether the council was obliged to undertake comprehensive reassessments of individual needs under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 s.47 and related guidance before taking a high‑level decision to cease direct delivery of the PTU (the claimants relied also on R v Gloucestershire County Council, ex parte Barry); (ii) whether the consultation material fairly described the proposal or was misleading in the sense explained in R (Moseley) v Haringey; and (iii) whether the council had had "due regard" to the need to eliminate or mitigate disadvantages to disabled persons under s.149 EA 2010.

Reasoning and disposition: the court agreed with the judge below. It held that the decision to close the PTU was a high‑level policy decision about how to discharge obligations under s.2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and did not, by itself, withdraw services from individuals. The transport assessments carried out (personal meetings and transport assessment forms) were sufficient to inform the high‑level decision and satisfied the Tameside principle that the authority had taken reasonable steps to acquaint itself with relevant information. On consultation, although the consultation booklet did not explicitly state in terms "we will close the PTU," the court found that a reasonable reader would understand the proposal as a move to alternative transport arrangements and that the consultation was not so misleading as to be unlawful; the court distinguished the present case from the misleading features identified in Moseley. On PSED, the court concluded that the Community Impact Assessment, the consultation and the individual transport assessments, read together, showed that the council had had due regard to equality considerations and had identified and considered mitigation measures; no greater degree of analysis was required at this stage. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal agreed with HHJ Stephen Davies that (a) the decision to close the PTU was a lawful high‑level policy decision under the statutory framework (including s.2 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970) and did not require comprehensive community care reassessments of every user before that decision; (b) the consultation, taken as a whole, was not so misleading or unfair as to invalidate the decision; and (c) the council had complied with its public sector equality duty under section 149 Equality Act 2010 by way of the Community Impact Assessment together with the individual transport assessments and consultation.

Appeal from the Administrative Court (HHJ Stephen Davies) ([2014] EWHC 3481 (Admin)). Permission to appeal granted by Bean LJ. Heard in the Court of Appeal (Richards LJ, Treacy LJ, Newey J) and dismissed [2015] EWCA Civ 6.