P (by her litigation friend SP), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon

A local authority deciding how to meet eligible care and support needs must make a reasoned, procedurally fair and reasonable decision under section 18 of the Care Act 2014. This is particularly important where it departs from a recent assessment or recommendation and relies on care provided by family members. The authority must explain how the person’s needs will be met, taking account of the care that carers are willing and able to provide. Personal budgets and care plans must be prepared transparently and with the required involvement of the adult and relevant carers. Procedural non-compliance will justify relief unless the authority proves that it is highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different. Historic failures to provide an agreed level of support may also found declaratory relief.

The claimant, an adult with autism, epilepsy, learning difficulties and other complex needs, challenged Croydon’s decision to provide or fund 35 hours of support per week. A previous October 2021 analysis had indicated substantially greater support and an indicative budget of £1,200 per week, but a February 2022 care and support plan fixed the weekly commitment at 35 hours without informing or involving the claimant and her family.

The claim alleged failure to meet needs, failure to assess carers’ needs, non-compliance with the statutory guidance in calculating the personal budget, and non-compliance in preparing the care and support plan. The central issues were whether the February 2022 decision was lawful, whether the earlier failure to increase support from 30 to 35 hours was unlawful, and whether relief should be refused on the basis that the procedural defects made no difference.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The February 2022 decision to provide or fund 35 hours of support was unlawful. Having rejected the indicative budget in the October 2021 analysis, the authority was required to make a reasoned, procedurally fair and reasonable decision under section 18 of the Care Act 2014. It had to explain how the claimant’s needs would be met, taking proper account of the care her family were willing and able to provide.
2. The need for reasons was acute because the authority had departed radically from its recent assessment, the claimant had left college, and the authority’s own evidence recorded over-reliance on and pressure upon her mother. The authority had not demonstrated that a properly reasoned decision had been made or communicated.
3. The claimant was not required to identify precisely which individual needs were unmet before challenging the decision. The authority had to inform itself, exercise its judgment under section 18 and communicate the result intelligibly.
4. The authority’s failure between 19 August 2019 and 14 February 2022 to increase support from 30 to the agreed 35 hours per week was an unlawful failure to meet the claimant’s needs. Historic breaches were not irrelevant.
5. Ground 2 had become academic because the authority had agreed to assess the claimant’s mother’s needs. Grounds 3 and 4 also succeeded. The personal budget and care and support plan had not been prepared transparently or with the claimant’s and family’s required involvement under the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
6. The authority had not shown that it was highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same absent the procedural defects, as required by section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Meaningful involvement was connected to the autonomy and control contemplated by section 1 of the Care Act 2014.
7. The February 2022 support decision and the 14 February 2022 care and support plan were quashed. A mandatory reconsideration order was unnecessary. Declaratory relief was granted for the historic failure, and costs followed the agreed position.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment records that Cotter J granted permission on Grounds 1 and 2, refused permission on the original Grounds 3 and 4, and directed an amended claim. The amended Grounds 3 and 4 were subsequently permitted by the Deputy High Court Judge.