CP v North East Lincolnshire Council

A local authority must provide a transparent personal budget within a care and support plan. A failure may be unlawful, but judicial review relief may be refused where the defect has been superseded and has no continuing effect.

Care plans must be based on the carer’s involvement and must not impose unreasonable care on an unwilling family member. The statutory duty to integrate education, health and social care is general and is enforceable only where a broader policy failure is shown.

Where an appeal concerning special educational provision is pending before the First-tier Tribunal, the authority may defer final decisions on matters within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Disagreement over a particular educational placement does not, without more, breach the right to education or create a restitutionary claim.

The claimant, a 22-year-old woman with complex disabilities, brought judicial review proceedings against the local authority’s adult social care assessments, care plans and direct payments under the Care Act 2014. Related proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal concerned an education, health and care plan and the suitability and funding of the claimant’s placement at Fix n’Kiks.

By the substantive hearing, the parties had agreed the claimant’s ongoing care and transport arrangements. The remaining dispute concerned historical care plans, personal budgets, family support, integration of services, the alleged breach of Article 2 of the First Protocol, and possible restitution or compensation.

1. The claim failed. The local authority acted lawfully except that earlier care plans were defective in failing to provide a sufficiently transparent personal budget. That defect was one of form rather than substance and had been superseded, so quashing relief was inappropriate.
2. Under sections 25 and 26 of the Care Act 2014, a care and support plan must include a transparent personal budget enabling the adult and voluntary carers to understand the provision funded by the authority and the direct payments available. The disputed placement did not prevent the authority from stating the budget.
3. A local authority must involve the carer when preparing the plan. A plan which assumes care from an unwilling family member, or imposes an unreasonable demand, is prima facie unlawful. The assessment here was collaborative and recorded that further assessment would be available if the carer’s circumstances changed. There was no refusal to review, insistence on family care despite clear unwillingness, or irrationally low assessment.
4. The integration duty under section 25 of the Children and Families Act 2014 is expressed in general terms. It does not create an individual right to integrated departments. Judicial review may be available where the authority’s procedures plainly disregard the statutory purpose, but no such failure was established.
5. Where an appeal under section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014 concerns the placement or social care provision which educates or trains the young person, the First-tier Tribunal is the decision-maker. The authority was entitled to defer final decisions on the placement fee and related deemed special educational provision until the tribunal determined the appeal.
6. There was no breach of Article 2 of the First Protocol. The Convention does not guarantee education at a particular institution. The claimant continued to receive care and educational support at the placement, and the disagreement concerned its suitability and cost. Nor did the public authority’s failure to allocate disputed funds amount to unjust enrichment or support a restitutionary claim.

The proceedings were commenced in the Administrative Court in 2016. They were stayed while related proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal were pursued. Permission to proceed with judicial review was granted on 27 March 2017, and amended grounds were permitted on 6 September 2017. The First-tier Tribunal ultimately directed an education, health and care plan naming Fix n’Kiks. The Administrative Court then determined the remaining historical issues and dismissed the claim.