R (Campbell) v Ealing LBC

The Court of Appeal considered whether section 23 of the Care Act 2014 prevents a local authority from meeting an adult's eligible care and support needs by providing ordinary accommodation where the Housing Act 1996 creates the relevant housing regime. The court held that section 23 draws a boundary in law so that ordinary housing provision required under Part VI (allocation schemes) or Part VII (homelessness duties) of the Housing Act cannot be provided under the Care Act as a way of circumventing housing allocation priorities. The court followed the reasoning in R (Idolo) v Bromley LBC and rejected the appellant's submission that "accommodation-plus" needs can always be met by the Care Act where a housing duty has not yet been discharged. Because section 23 applied, the local authority had no duty under the Care Act to fund ordinary accommodation and the decision to withdraw such funding was not irrational.

Background and parties: The appellant, Mr Campbell, a partially sighted adult with additional mental health conditions, had been living in bed-and-breakfast temporary accommodation initially placed by another borough and funded by the London Borough of Ealing from February 2016 under what was described as s 19(3) Care Act 2014 assistance. Repeated needs assessments concluded he had eligible domiciliary needs. He remained on Ealing's housing register in priority Band B and used the Locata allocation system while living in temporary accommodation.

Procedural history: Ealing decided on 28 February 2022 to withdraw funding for the temporary accommodation; that decision was reviewed and briefly extended, and the appellant commenced judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court (Judge O'Connor sitting as a High Court judge) dismissed the claim on 9 January 2023 ([2023] EWHC 10 (Admin)). Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on grounds 1 and 2 by Males LJ on 24 May 2023; the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 1 May 2024.

Nature of the claim and issues: The appellant sought review of the decision withdrawing funding on several grounds, principally (i) that s 23 of the Care Act 2014 did not prevent Ealing from meeting his "accommodation-plus" needs by funding ordinary accommodation under the Care Act, and (ii) that the withdrawal decision was irrational or taken for an improper purpose. The appellant also alleged victimisation in breach of the Equality Act 2010, but permission to appeal that ground was refused.

Court’s reasoning: The court analysed the statutory frameworks of the Care Act 2014 (notably ss 1, 8, 9, 13, 18, 19 and 23) and the Housing Act 1996 (Parts VI and VII; notably s 159 and s 166A). It accepted that the Care Act permits provision of accommodation where necessary to deliver care and support, but held that s 23 is intended to preserve the Housing Act allocation and homelessness schemes by preventing the Care Act from being used to circumvent those schemes. The court followed and endorsed the reasoning in R (Idolo) v Bromley LBC that housing needs identified via the Care Act must find their place within the Housing Act schemes rather than bypass them. The court rejected reliance on earlier authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948 as not determinative of the Care Act question. It concluded that, because the appellant was subject to the Housing Act schemes (he was on the housing register and had sought assistance under Part VII), s 23 prevented the Care Act being invoked to require funding of ordinary accommodation. Consequently the decision to withdraw funding was lawful and not irrational.

Wider context: The court noted the policy and practical reasons for its conclusion: to protect allocation priorities, avoid queue-jumping, and prevent adult social care departments being turned into housing providers. It accepted that the issue is of wider importance though the appellant had obtained general accommodation after the hearing.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that section 23 of the Care Act 2014 prevents ordinary accommodation required under the Housing Act 1996 (whether via Part VI allocation schemes or Part VII homelessness duties) from being supplied under the Care Act as a means to meet 'accommodation-plus' needs. For that reason the local authority had no duty under the Care Act to fund the appellant's ordinary temporary accommodation and its decision to withdraw funding was not irrational.

Appeal from the Administrative Court (Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor sitting as a High Court judge) judgment dated 9 January 2023 ([2023] EWHC 10 (Admin)). Permission to appeal was granted by Males LJ on 24 May 2023 (permission limited to Grounds 1 and 2). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 17 May 2024 ([2024] EWCA Civ 540).