AB by his litigation friend MB (R on the application of) v SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL

A local authority may consult on a preferred option, provided the proposal remains genuinely open to consideration and consultees understand the proposal and its rationale sufficiently to respond intelligently. It is not generally required to complete individual care assessments before deciding at a high level to reorganise services affecting many people. Individual assessments and challenges to the suitability of replacement services may properly occur downstream. A high-level decision is unlawful only where the evidence base is so seriously deficient that no rational authority could have proceeded, or where the authority could not rationally conclude that it would comply with its statutory duties. A later challenge to individual provision cannot ordinarily convert into a challenge to the earlier service-reorganisation decision.

The claimant, an adult with significant physical and learning disabilities, challenged the defendant local authority’s decision to close Priors Day Centre and reorganise its adult social care provider services.

He alleged that the consultation was unlawful, that relevant considerations had been omitted, and that the authority had failed to meet its duties under the Care Act 2014. By the hearing, the claimant also criticised the suitability of the alternative service arranged for him. The central issues were whether the consultation satisfied the Gunning principles, whether individual needs assessments were required before the high-level closure decision, and whether the pleaded challenge concerned that decision or a later downstream placement.

1. Claim dismissed. The consultation was lawful. The proposal remained at a formative stage when consultation took place. The report writers had discounted alternatives, but the Cabinet retained the decision-making power, and the proposal was debated before safeguards were imposed. A public authority may consult while holding a preferred option; it need not consult before rejecting every possible alternative.
2. The second Gunning principle was satisfied. The consultation materials explained the Council’s financial difficulties, its intention to rely less on day centres, its consideration of the future of Priors, and the possibility of alternative provision. The language could have been more direct, but consultees understood that closure was a possible outcome and understood the financial rationale. The consultation was not rendered unlawful by an unrecorded postal response or by the Council’s estimate that some users would not return to pre-pandemic attendance.
3. There is no general legal requirement for a local authority to assess every individual service user and match each person to an alternative provider before making a high-level decision affecting many people. Applying the approach in R (Robson) v Salford City Council [2015] PTSR 1349, the claimant had to show that the evidence base was so seriously deficient that no rational authority could have proceeded, or that the authority could not rationally conclude that it could comply with its statutory duties. That threshold was not met.
4. The Council’s statutory duty under section 5 of the Care Act 2014 concerned the operation of the care and support market, rather than requiring individual assessments before the high-level decision. The report adequately considered the relevant financial and market issues. Failure expressly to mention the CASS guidance or the National Disability Strategy did not make the decision unlawful.
5. Ground 3 impermissibly shifted from alleging that no assessment had been undertaken to challenging the suitability of The Light UK. That was a downstream issue and could not impugn the decision to close Priors. The court therefore dismissed the claim.