Davey, R (On the Application Of) v Oxfordshire County Council

A local authority assessing and funding adult social care must apply the Care Act 2014 objectively, while promoting the individual’s wellbeing and having regard to the person’s views, wishes and circumstances. The individual’s wishes are important but do not determine the needs assessment or personal budget. Once eligible needs are identified, the authority must provide services or a budget capable of meeting them, irrespective of its resources. Judicial review involves close scrutiny where the impact is profound, but the court must respect professional judgment and avoid imposing excessive textual demands on social-care assessments. An unincorporated international convention may assist statutory construction where ambiguity exists, but cannot qualify clear statutory language. The claim failed because the authority had considered the relevant risks, social activities, care arrangements and rates of pay, and acted rationally.

The claimant, a severely disabled adult receiving care through a longstanding team of personal assistants, challenged Oxfordshire County Council’s decision to reduce his personal budget from £1,651 to £950 per week following the closure of the Independent Living Fund.

He argued that the revised assessment unlawfully assumed that he could spend longer periods alone, failed to address risks to psychological wellbeing, toileting and social activities, failed to consider the possible loss of his established care team, failed to take reasonable steps to reach agreement, and failed to justify the proposed rates of pay.

The central issue was whether the revised assessment and care plan complied with the authority’s duties under the Care Act 2014 and were rational and lawful on judicial review.

1. Claim dismissed. The court found no legal error warranting intervention in the Council’s assessment, care plan or personal budget.
2. The wellbeing duty in section 1(1) of the Care Act 2014 is distinct from the duty to have regard to specified matters under section 1(3). The authority must promote wellbeing, including physical, mental and emotional wellbeing, and must have regard to the individual’s views and all the individual’s circumstances. Those duties do not make the individual’s wishes paramount or give the individual the final say on assessed needs or funding.
3. The statutory scheme requires an objective assessment of needs, eligibility, arrangements to meet eligible needs and, where relevant, the reasonable cost of provision. Once eligible needs are assessed, the authority must provide services or a personal budget capable of meeting them, regardless of its resources. Resources may, however, be relevant at the assessment stage.
4. The need identified in the assessment was properly understood as developing independence and reducing anxiety. Spending more time alone was the proposed means of meeting that need. The Council’s professional judgment that carefully increased periods alone could reduce anxiety was not Wednesbury unreasonable, particularly as periods could be limited to no more than two hours and the position monitored.
5. The Council had considered the risk to psychological wellbeing, toileting needs and social activities. The proposed arrangements preserved a wide range of social activity, although they might reduce opportunities for some PA-supported day trips. That limited effect did not breach the statutory wellbeing duty.
6. The care plan and budget were predicated on a team of personal assistants. Live-in care had been considered but was not the chosen or operative arrangement. The Council therefore had to consider the adequacy of the PA rates. It had done so, and the court could not characterise the experienced social worker’s judgment as irrational, particularly given the safeguard of reviewing the budget if recruitment proved difficult.
7. The duty under section 27(5) was to take all reasonable steps to reach agreement, not to reach agreement at any cost. The extensive engagement over the assessment period satisfied that duty.
8. Article 19 of the UNCRPD was not incorporated into domestic law. It could assist construction in a case of ambiguity, but could not qualify clear statutory language or alter the balance struck by the Act.