TS, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Hackney

A local authority assessing a disabled child in need must analyse the child’s individual needs, the family’s capacity to meet them and the level of risk. It must formulate a realistic plan of action identifying the services, actions, responsible persons and purposes. Statutory guidance under section 7 of the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 must be followed unless there is a considered decision that there is good reason to depart from it. Where circumstances suggest that section 20(1) of the Children Act 1989 may be engaged, the authority must address that duty expressly or by reliable reasoning. A general assertion that an existing care package is appropriate is insufficient. A court will treat post-commencement explanations with particular caution where they are absent from the impugned decisions.

TS, a significantly disabled child, challenged Hackney’s Child and Family Assessment dated 17 February 2023 and Care Package Panel review dated 28 March 2023. The decisions rejected her family’s request for two nights’ weekly respite accommodation at Bayis Sheli and substantially increased support.

The claim alleged failure to complete a lawful assessment, breach of the duty under section 20(1)(c) of the Children Act 1989, and irrational service provision. The central questions were whether Hackney had analysed TS’s individual needs and produced a realistic plan, whether it had considered the section 20(1) duty, and whether its care package decision was lawful.

1. Ground A allowed. The Assessment and Panel Decision recorded that the family was at crisis point but did not explain how that crisis would be addressed. They failed to engage in detail with the family’s evidence and proposals, including the January letter, and did not explain why the social worker’s recommendation for additional respite was rejected.
2. The purported updated assessment merely repeated the parents’ concerns. The Panel’s conclusion that the existing package was appropriate was an assertion unsupported by analysis. There was also no discussion of the changed evidence concerning Step by Step. The statutory guidance required analysis of the child’s needs and a realistic plan of action. The later reasoning in Mr Jahoda’s witness statement was treated with considerable caution because it was not contained, expressly or implicitly, in the impugned decisions.
3. Ground B succeeded in part. The circumstances described in the documents should have prompted consideration of whether section 20(1) was engaged. There was no reliable basis for concluding that Hackney had considered that duty when making the decisions. However, the court could not conclude that the only rational outcome of a lawful assessment would have been that the duty was engaged. Section 20(1), once engaged, imposes an absolute duty, but whether it arises is an evaluative judgment rather than a discretion.
4. Ground C allowed. The defective analysis rendered the care-package decision unlawful. It was a decision that did not add up and could not constitute a realistic plan of action.
5. The Assessment and Panel Decision were liable to be quashed. The court indicated that the parties should seek to maintain the interim accommodation arrangement pending a fresh assessment and decision on TS’s care package.