JF, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Merton (Rev 1)

A Care Act needs assessment must rationally identify an adult’s needs, assess their impact on well-being, address desired outcomes, and have regard to the matters specified in regulation 3(2) of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014. It must be appropriate and proportionate to the individual’s needs.

A local authority cannot lawfully decide to terminate an existing placement or treat alternative accommodation as suitable before completing a lawful assessment of needs. The assessment concerns current needs and their effect on accommodation; detailed planning for a move belongs principally in the care and support plan. A reviewing court must respect the authority’s fact-finding role, although review may be more intensive where the decision profoundly affects a vulnerable person.

JF, an adult with autism spectrum disorder and severe learning difficulties, challenged the London Borough of Merton’s Care Act needs assessment and its decisions concerning his residential placement. He had lived at David Lewis College since 2012, but the authority planned to terminate that placement and considered Aspen Lodge, operated by Sussex Health Care, as an alternative.

The claim alleged that the assessment failed to address important needs, including access to an on-site multidisciplinary team and a total communication environment, and that the authority had relied unlawfully on a third-party pre-admission report. The authority argued that no final placement decision had been made and that the assessment process was incomplete.

1. Claim allowed. The Care Act Assessment dated 14 July 2016, the decision to terminate JF’s placement at David Lewis College, and the decision that Aspen Lodge was suitable to meet his needs were quashed.
2. Under sections 1 and 9 of the Care Act 2014, the authority had to assess JF’s needs rationally, assess their impact on his physical, mental and emotional well-being and the suitability of accommodation, consider his desired outcomes, and involve those representing his interests. Regulation 3 of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 required an appropriate and proportionate assessment having regard to his wishes, preferences, desired outcomes and the severity and extent of his needs.
3. The assessment sufficiently described JF’s SALT and occupational therapy needs. Referring to relevant supporting reports was permissible, provided the conclusions were rationally based on the material.
4. The assessment was unlawful concerning the proposed on-site multidisciplinary team and total communication environment. It recorded the benefits of those facilities and the parents’ views, but did not disclose whether the asserted needs had been considered and rejected or had simply been overlooked. The authority had not shown who made the decision, when it was made, or its evidential basis. It therefore failed to comply with sections 1(1), 1(3) and 9(4) of the Act.
5. The assessment was not required to address in detail how JF would transition between placements. It concerned current needs and their effect on accommodation. Detailed transition planning would arise when meeting those needs under the care and support plan required by sections 24 and 25.
6. The authority had nevertheless decided to terminate the existing placement and had decided that Aspen Lodge could meet JF’s assessed needs, although it had not formally decided to move him there. Those decisions could not stand because they preceded a lawful needs assessment. The third-party report could be considered only after a lawful assessment.
7. The court had power to quash the assessment and require a further assessment. The defendant was ordered to undertake one in accordance with the Act and associated Regulations.