Davey, R (on the application of) v Oxfordshire County Council & Ors

Under the Care Act 2014, a local authority must promote individual wellbeing, assess the statutory impact of care needs, and have regard to the person's circumstances and wishes. These duties do not guarantee a preferred care arrangement or preservation of an existing care team at rates above local market conditions. A reduction in personal assistance is not unlawful where a wide range of social activities remains available and the authority considered the relevant effects. Broad principles in an unincorporated convention may assist statutory construction only where legislation is ambiguous; they cannot qualify clear primary legislation.

The appellant, a severely disabled adult receiving direct payments, challenged Oxfordshire County Council's decision to reduce his weekly personal budget from £1,651 to £950 and revise his care and support plan under the Care Act 2014. Morris J dismissed the judicial review claim on all grounds: [2017] EWHC 354 (Admin). Permission to appeal concerned whether the Council had considered the effect on the appellant's social activities, the risk that his established personal-assistant team would leave, and whether proposed payment rates were reasonable and sufficient. The central issue was whether those matters made the assessment, plan or budget unlawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Council had not acted unlawfully in reducing the personal budget and revising the care and support plan.
2. The duties under section 1 of the Care Act 2014 to promote wellbeing and have regard to all the individual's circumstances were distinct. A needs assessment under section 9(4) had to address the impact of needs on wellbeing, the outcomes the adult wished to achieve, and whether care and support could contribute to them. It did not require the authority to secure every desired outcome.
3. As to continuity of the personal-assistant team, the Council was not required to make speculative judgments about contingent future events. The relevant challenge depended on evidence of a real and imminent risk. The judge was entitled to find that there was insufficient evidence that the existing team would break up or that members would leave. The reference to R(M) v Slough LBC was not determinative, and the factual findings independently defeated the ground: [2008] 1 WLR 1808.
4. Personal budgets should reflect local market conditions and the cost of local quality provision. The Council was not required to fund rates above the local going rate merely to preserve carers who would not accept that rate. Evidence from an experienced social worker, together with a commitment to review the budget if recruitment proved difficult, was sufficient to defeat the Wednesbury challenge.
5. The Council had considered the effect of the proposed timings on social activities. Although opportunities for some PA-accompanied day trips might be reduced, a wide range of social activities remained available. That limited effect did not breach section 1 or render the decision Wednesbury unreasonable.
6. For completeness, the court agreed that the unincorporated UNCRPD created no direct domestic obligations. Article 19 could assist construction of an ambiguous or uncertain statutory provision, but could not override clear primary legislation. The court also cautioned against applying planning-law standards of ex post facto rationalisation too strictly to social-work assessments, endorsing R (Ireneschild) v Lambeth LBC: [2007] EWCA Civ 234.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Dismissed the appeal on all three grounds.
• Administrative Court Morris J dismissed the judicial review claim on all grounds: [2017] EWHC 354 (Admin).