BG (R on the application of) v SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL

Under the Care Act 2014, eligible care and support needs are not confined to personal care services. The statutory concept of meeting needs is broad and may include financial support, goods, facilities, recreational activities and holidays where they address assessed needs and promote well-being.

Recreational facilities and services under regulation 2(2)(i) of the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015 are not confined to the local area. A local authority must assess the full extent of needs before applying the eligibility criteria. It must also consider its discretionary power to meet non-eligible needs under section 19. An assessment shaped by an unlawful restrictive interpretation is defective.

Two disabled brothers sought judicial review of Suffolk County Council’s decisions to withdraw funding for family holidays and to end direct payments used for outings, recreational activities and community access.

The Council accepted that support costs for carers could in principle be funded, but concluded that holiday travel, accommodation, entrance fees and other universal costs were not eligible needs. It also treated the brothers’ needs as being met by their mother, so that section 18(7) of the Care Act 2014 removed any duty to provide support.

The claim challenged the Council’s interpretation of its statutory powers, its failure to consider section 19, the adequacy of its inquiries, irrationality and its treatment of carers’ needs.

1. Grounds 1, 2 and 5 succeeded; grounds 3, 4 and 7 were dismissed. The claim for judicial review was therefore allowed in part.
2. The Council’s restrictive interpretation of the Care Act 2014 was unlawful. “Care and support” includes more than personal services. In context, “support” may include financial assistance. Section 8 provides non-exhaustive examples of how needs may be met, including support in the community, goods and facilities, services arranged by another person and direct payments.
3. Recreational facilities and services in regulation 2(2)(i) of the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015 are not confined to the local area. They may include trips away from home to access facilities or services elsewhere. If an assessed need arising from disability includes recreational activities or a holiday, the associated cost may potentially be met under section 18.
4. The Council had previously assessed the brothers’ needs for community activities, day trips and holidays and recorded their benefits to mental health, relationships and well-being. The 2019 and 2021 assessments wrongly excluded those aspects of need, including financial support for access to recreational facilities. The Council could not rely on assessments tainted by its erroneous interpretation.
5. The Council therefore unlawfully fettered its discretion by deciding that it would no longer fund holiday needs. It should also have considered its power under section 19 to meet non-eligible care and support needs before ending the direct payments.
6. The Council was not required to make further inquiries into the conduct of the NHS Neurodevelopmental Team, and the evidence did not establish inadequate liaison or inquiry by the social workers. No determination was made on irrationality because the principal error was one of statutory interpretation. Ground 7 was not pursued after carers’ budgets were approved.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The claim was allowed on grounds 1, 2 and 5, and dismissed on grounds 3, 4 and 7.