The Queen on the application of BG (by his mother and litigation friend SQ) & Anor v Suffolk County Council

Under the Care Act 2014, needs for “care and support” are individual and may extend beyond conventional looked-after care. They may include financial assistance enabling a disabled adult to access recreational activities and holidays.

Recreational facilities or services in regulation 2(2)(i) of the eligibility regulations are not geographically confined to the adult’s local community. A need arising from physical or mental impairment may be eligible even if it concerns expenditure also incurred by people without disabilities. The decisive question is whether the assessed individual can achieve the relevant statutory outcomes without assistance.

A carer does not meet an eligible recreational need merely by providing personal support where the adult still lacks the financial means of accessing the activity.

Two disabled adult brothers had historically received direct payments from Suffolk County Council to fund recreational activities and supported family holidays. The Council later adopted the position that holiday travel, accommodation and other “universal costs” could not be eligible needs under the Care Act 2014. It terminated their direct payments after concluding that their mother met all their eligible needs.

Lang J allowed their judicial review claim in [2021] EWHC 3368 (Admin). She held that the Council could provide financial support for recreational activities and holidays under sections 18 and 19 and ordered fresh assessments.

The Council appealed, principally disputing the statutory powers and contending that the judge had impermissibly examined unchallenged earlier assessments. The central questions were whether recreational activities and holidays could constitute eligible needs for care and support and whether the ongoing assessment process could properly be considered.

1. Appeal dismissed. The statutory scheme requires a sequential process: assessment of needs; determination of eligibility; discharge of the duty to meet eligible needs unless a carer meets them; consideration of the discretionary power concerning non-eligible needs; and preparation of a care and support plan.

2. The expression “care and support” in the Care Act 2014 is broader than the “care and attention” terminology of predecessor legislation. It cannot be reduced to conventional “looked-after” needs. The Act emphasises individual well-being, autonomy, flexibility and support tailored to the particular adult’s circumstances, wishes and desired outcomes.

3. Regulation 2(2)(i) of the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015 confines “necessary facilities or services in the local community” geographically. It does not similarly confine “recreational facilities or services”. Recreational activities may therefore include holidays and activities outside the local community.

4. A need for financial assistance to access recreation may be eligible where it arises from physical or mental impairment, the adult cannot achieve the prescribed outcomes without assistance, and the resulting inability significantly affects well-being. The fact that other people also incur expenditure on admission, transport or holidays does not exclude the need. Eligibility depends on the circumstances of the particular adult, rather than whether the expenditure can be described as universal.

5. The respondents’ mother provided essential personal assistance but could not afford entrance fees, transport and other recreational costs. She therefore did not meet the whole of their eligible recreational needs. The Council’s contrary conclusion rested on an unduly restrictive interpretation of the Act.

6. Section 18 empowered the Council to meet the eligible needs through goods or facilities and direct payments. Section 19 also conferred a discretionary power to provide financial support for recreational activities and holidays where assessed needs were not eligible.

7. The assessments and decisions from October 2019 to November 2020 formed an ongoing process culminating in the operative decision to terminate direct payments. The Administrative Court was entitled to consider that process. The order was corrected to quash the decision of 12 November 2020, which the judge had plainly intended to quash.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Council’s appeal was dismissed in [2022] EWCA Civ 1047. The court corrected the operative order so that the Council’s decision of 12 November 2020 was quashed.
2. Administrative Court: Lang J allowed the judicial review claim in [2021] EWHC 3368 (Admin). She held that the Council had power under sections 18 and 19 of the Care Act 2014 to provide financial support for recreational activities and holidays, quashed the Council’s decision and required fresh assessments.