D, R (on the application of) v Brent Council

A local authority must assess eligible care needs and decide how to meet them within a reasonable period. The legislation does not impose a fixed deadline equivalent to the date identified in an assessment. Reasonableness depends on all the circumstances, including the need to identify the best option, obtain information from providers and involve the adult and relevant family members. A preliminary reference to residential care does not finally determine how needs must be met where supported living remains a genuine option. The court should not compel a local authority to decide on inadequate information where a necessary assessment can be completed promptly.

The claimant was a highly vulnerable young adult with autism who returned from residential education to live with his mother in Brent. Brent Council had assessed him as requiring suitable care and accommodation but had not made a final placement decision or completed the relevant care and support planning.

The claimant sought judicial review, alleging unlawful delay and breaches of duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1980, the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014. The central issues were whether the Council had missed a binding deadline, whether the delay was unreasonable, and whether the claimant and his mother had been sufficiently involved.

1. Permission and outcome. Permission to proceed with the judicial review was refused. Alternatively, after full argument, the claim would have been dismissed because the Council had not acted unlawfully.
2. Section 9 of the Care Act 2014 required the Council to assess the claimant’s needs, and section 24 required it to prepare a care and support plan. Those duties, and the other provisions relied on, did not impose a fixed deadline by which the Council had to choose a placement or complete the plan.
3. The Council nevertheless had to make its decision and prepare the plan within a reasonable period under general public law principles. The relevant period depended on all the circumstances, including the objective of identifying the best way to meet the claimant’s assessed needs, obtaining information and assessments from care providers, and seeking input from the claimant’s mother.
4. The May assessment’s reference to a move to residential care was not a final determination. Supported living remained a genuine and important option, supported by some of the evidence, and the Council was entitled, indeed obliged, to investigate it further. Requiring an immediate decision in favour of residential care without the CMG assessment would improperly usurp the Council’s statutory function and risk a decision based on inadequate information.
5. The delays resulted at different times from the Council, care providers and the claimant’s mother. In context, including the offer of interim care and the care provided at home, the delay was not unreasonable in the public law sense. Although communications could have been clearer, the claimant’s mother had been involved in the process. The Council was expected to arrange the CMG assessment and proceed expeditiously to a final decision.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment states that Cranston J ordered urgent consideration and a rolled-up hearing, but gives no separate decision citation.