MM, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow

Children’s needs assessments must lead to a realistic plan identifying the services required, responsibility, timing and review arrangements. Once needs have been assessed and a care plan identifies services that must be provided, the local authority’s duty to provide them becomes absolute. A resource-allocation scheme is not unlawful merely because it uses indicative points or modest suggested maxima, provided it guides rather than dictates discretion.

MM, an autistic child, and his mother challenged the lawfulness of a February 2015 multi-assessment prepared by Hounslow. They alleged that it understated MM’s needs, failed properly to assess his mother as carer, and did not provide a lawful plan for meeting identified needs. They also challenged Hounslow’s eligibility criteria and provision for carers’ breaks. The central issues were whether permission had been granted for the amended claim and whether the assessment and related statutory arrangements were lawful.

1. Permission was required for the amended judicial-review claim because it challenged a different decision from the original grounds. Permission was granted by this judgment.
2. The assessment was lawful. It was reasonably open to the social worker to reach her conclusions about daytime support, overnight care, supervision and housing on the evidence.
3. The statutory process involves identifying needs, producing a realistic care plan, providing the identified services and, for direct payments, calculating their reasonable cost. The absence of a care plan while the assessment was under challenge was not itself unlawful. Once the assessment survived, a care plan had to be prepared and the Resource Allocation Panel had to reconsider its decision.
4. The general duties under section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 and regulation 4 of the Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011 did not confer an individual entitlement to every assessed need or particular service.
5. Hounslow’s eligibility criteria were lawful because they operated as guidance, allowed consideration of family circumstances and permitted departures from indicative allocations. The claim was dismissed, subject to reconsideration by the Resource Allocation Panel after preparation of the care plan.