Ali Raja & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge (Rev 1)

Under the Care Act 2014, a local authority may use section 19(3) to meet urgent care and support needs before completing a further needs assessment. An earlier assessment or care plan, and the availability of review and revision under section 27, do not exclude that power. A discretionary power must be exercised reasonably. Where the evidence establishes that a carer can no longer reasonably be expected to meet an assessed need, and urgent interim provision is the sole justifiable response, refusal to act is unlawful. In an appropriate case, a court may consider subsequent evidence in a rolling judicial review of an ongoing refusal, provided procedural fairness and sufficient rigour are maintained.

The claimants were two adult brothers with severe physical and learning disabilities who lived with their mother. Their existing care plans relied on the mother to provide night-time repositioning, supplemented by limited respite care. The claimants sought urgent interim funding for overnight carers pending the defendant local authority’s agreed full reassessment of their needs.

The local authority argued that section 19(3) applied only before an initial needs assessment, that any interim response had to be made under section 27, and that the evidence did not establish an urgent need. The claim challenged an ongoing refusal to provide the requested care. The central issues were whether section 19(3) was available pending a further assessment and whether continued refusal was unreasonable in public law.

1. Claim succeeded. The court converted the interim relief into a final mandatory order requiring the defendant to fund 10 hours of night-time care per day for each claimant under section 19(3), subject to completion of the assessment process and further order.
2. Section 19(3) is not confined to the period before a first statutory needs assessment. Where a local authority is to carry out a further section 9(1) needs assessment, that assessment has not yet been carried out, and urgent needs appear to exist, section 19(3) may be used to meet those needs pending reassessment. Section 27 review and revision powers may also be available. The two powers can overlap.
3. The local authority remained the primary decision-maker, and the court’s supervisory jurisdiction required caution and restraint. Nevertheless, repeated requests to exercise a discretion required the authority to address whether it should do so. It could not treat reassessment as legally required before any interim change.
4. The decisive question was whether the mother could reasonably be expected to reposition the claimants single-handedly at night. The occupational therapy reports, later assessment documents and the mother’s evidence established a current need for two-person repositioning and supported the conclusion that overnight care was urgent. Health and safety and equipment concerns were legitimate matters for assessment, but did not by themselves justify refusing interim provision.
5. The proceedings were properly treated as a rolling judicial review. The court could consider the ongoing refusal and later evidence, including the absence of any reasoned decision document addressing the central question. A mandatory order was justified because continuing interim care was the sole justifiable response. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs incurred after 11 October 2019, with 50 per cent paid on account under CPR 44.2(8).