JG, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Southwark

A local authority’s social-care assessment is not unlawful merely because another view is possible, and courts should avoid overzealous textual analysis of professional assessments. Judicial review remains available where the authority acts illegally, including by failing to take account of material evidence relevant to the statutory assessment. An assessor must engage with significant and contradictory professional evidence rather than replace it with conjecture or unsupported assumptions. A carer’s assessment must address the carer’s current needs in the context of a proper evaluation of the adult’s needs. Where an assessment is unlawful, the appropriate consequence is reconsideration; the court need not determine the level of care or require funding to continue automatically.

The claimant, a profoundly disabled adult, challenged Southwark’s assessment of her care and support needs under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014. The assessment concluded that she generally required one-to-one support, with temporary two-to-one support for two hours daily pending home adaptations, and that overnight support could be withdrawn.

The claim also alleged that the authority had failed to assess the claimant’s father as a carer and had failed to complete an adequate care and support plan. The central issues were whether the assessment irrationally failed to engage with material behavioural, medical and occupational-therapy evidence, whether a fresh assessment of the father was required, and what followed for the care plan.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded. The needs assessment was unlawful in material respects, and there was also an error of law concerning the claimant’s father’s carer assessment.
2. Intensity of review. Following R (Ireneschild) v Lambeth LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 234, Puhlhofer v Hillingdon LBC [1986] AC 484 and R (Lloyd) v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham [2001] EWCA Civ 533, the court emphasised restraint in reviewing social-care assessments. The court is not to prescribe the detail of an assessment or care plan where there is room for professional judgment. It remains the last resort where there is illegality. This approach was restated in R (Davey) v Oxfordshire County Council [2017] EWHC 354 (Admin).
3. Material evidence. The assessor’s conclusions were materially flawed because he failed to engage with significant evidence that the behavioural-support plan was being followed, that the claimant’s sleep difficulties were severe and entrenched, and that professional evidence supported two-to-one support for personal care and community access. The assessment instead relied on unsupported assumptions about behaviour, sleep routines and the utility of a wheelchair. This was more than disagreement or overzealous textual analysis.
4. Two-to-one support. Limiting additional support for personal hygiene to two hours daily was irrational because the claimant’s urinary and faecal incontinence required assistance at unpredictable times. The assessment also failed to establish a sufficient evidential basis for rejecting occupational-therapy evidence concerning stairs and community mobility.
5. Carer assessment. The claimant had sufficient interest to challenge the failure to assess her father. The issue was not academic. His current needs had to be assessed in the context of a proper evaluation of the claimant’s needs as a whole, including whether he was able and likely to remain able to provide care and what support was reasonably required.
6. Remedy and care plan. The court did not determine the precise level of future funding. The defects could be cured by a lawful reassessment, which might reach the same conclusion after considering all relevant evidence. Since the needs-assessment challenge succeeded, the existing care-and-support plan and any dispute about its adequacy fell away; consequential matters were reserved.