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

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council's decision to close the Priors day centre. The principal legal issues were (i) whether the public consultation was unlawful under the Gunning principles because it was not at a formative stage, did not give sufficient reasons, or did not conscientiously take responses into account; (ii) whether the Council failed to take relevant considerations into account when deciding to close the centre; and (iii) whether the claimant's Care Act 2014 needs had not been assessed or met.

The court applied the Gunning requirements as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Moseley and related authorities and found that the consultation (including the PSPC summary, surveys, focus groups and petition) made the financial pressures and the possibility of closure sufficiently clear to consultees; the consultation therefore took place at a formative stage and was not unlawful. The court held that there was no legal requirement for the authority to carry out individual up‑to‑date care assessments for every affected person before taking a high‑level decision to change its model of service; Robson was applied by analogy. The complaint that the claimant’s downstream placement at an alternative provider was unsuitable was treated as a challenge to an individual placement decision rather than to the high‑level closure decision.

Accordingly the court dismissed the claim for judicial review. Relevant statutory material considered included the Care Act 2014 (including the authority's market duties), s.114 Local Government Finance Act 1988 and portions of the Care and Support statutory guidance.

The claimant, a 40 year old man with spastic quadriplegia and other serious health needs, had long attended the Priors day centre. Slough Borough Council, facing substantial budgetary pressures including a s.114 report, undertook an Adult Social Care transformation review and a public consultation (5 July to 6 August 2021) about moving away from direct provision and relying less on building‑based day services. The Council made a Report to Cabinet recommending closure of Priors, relying on market analysis, financial modelling and consultation feedback; the Cabinet decided on 20 September 2021 to close Priors and to delegate implementation.

Nature of the claim: a judicial review seeking to challenge the Council's decision to close Priors on grounds of unlawful consultation, failure to take relevant considerations into account and ongoing failure to meet the claimant's eligible needs under the Care Act 2014.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether the consultation complied with the Gunning requirements (formative stage, sufficient reasons, adequate time, and taking responses into account);
• whether the Council failed to take relevant considerations into account when deciding to close the centre, including the needs of current service users, Care Act guidance and the National Disability Strategy;
• whether the Council failed to assess and meet the claimant's eligible needs under the Care Act 2014.

Court's reasoning and outcome: on consultation the judge found that the consultation documents, summary and engagement activities, together with the clear financial context, made clear to consultees that closure was a real option; the exercise therefore occurred at a formative stage, gave sufficient reasons for intelligent response, and the consultation responses were conscientiously considered. On relevant considerations the court held there is no general legal requirement for a local authority to undertake individual reassessments of all affected service users before taking a high‑level policy decision about service provision; Robson was applied by analogy and the Council's market and financial analysis and its stated duty under the Care Act 2014 to promote an effective market were adequate. On the Care Act challenge the complaint was characterised as attacking a downstream placement decision (the claimant's placement at an alternative provider) rather than the high‑level closure decision and so was not a valid basis to quash the Cabinet's decision. For these reasons the claim was dismissed. The judge noted that, had he accepted the claimant's case, he would have given a declaration but would not have quashed the decision or ordered a fresh consultation as disproportionate in light of the steps already taken.

The claim for judicial review is dismissed. The court held that the Council's consultation complied with the Gunning (Sedley) principles and took place at a formative stage with sufficient reasons and proper consideration of responses. The court further held that the Council did not unlawfully ignore relevant considerations: it was not required to carry out individual reassessments of all affected service users before taking the high‑level decision to change its model of provision, and the Care Act 2014 duties and guidance did not render the decision unlawful. A challenge to the adequacy of the claimant's subsequent placement was treated as a downstream issue not capable of invalidating the high‑level closure decision.