SARCP, R (on the application of) v Stoke-on-Trent City Council

The claimant, a trade association of care home providers, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision of 4 July 2024 to apply the minimum 1.4% indexation under Clause 18.3 of the 2021 Provider Contract. The court treated the decision as a hybrid act exercising both contractual discretions and public functions under the Care Act 2014, in particular the market-shaping duty in s.5 and the requirement to have regard to statutory guidance under s.78. The claimant succeeded on multiple public law grounds: inadequate consultation (Gunning principles), failure to have regard to the Care Act guidance and statutory market-shaping factors, breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 EqA) in failing to have due regard to impacts on residents, and irrationality for inadequate reasoning and unexplained evidential gaps. The Art.8 Human Rights ground failed for lack of victim status.

Background and parties: The claim was brought by SARCP, a trade body representing some care home providers, against Stoke-on-Trent City Council. The dispute concerned the Council's annual uplift of standard fee rates for residential placements under a 2021 Provider Contract and, specifically, application of the minimum 1.4% indexation in Clause 18.3 for 2024/25.

Procedural posture and relief sought: Permission for judicial review was granted on all grounds. The claimant sought a quashing order of the 4 July 2024 decision, declarations of unlawfulness and an order that the defendant undertake a lawful consultation and lawfully reconsider fees.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether the claimant had a suitable alternative remedy or standing;
• whether the decision had a sufficient public law element and was amenable to judicial review;
• whether consultation was adequate under the Gunning principles;
• whether the defendant had regard to the Care Act 2014, associated statutory guidance and the market-shaping duty (s.5);
• whether the Public Sector Equality Duty was observed; and
• whether the decision was irrational.

Reasoning and disposition: The court held the claim was properly brought by the claimant, that the decision was amenable to public law review because it engaged statutory market-shaping duties and affected third parties including residents, and that the public law challenge was not an attempt to enforce private contractual rights. On the facts the court found the Council had promised consultation to the claimant and the consultation outcome had not been conscientiously considered; the decision did not demonstrate regard to the Care Act guidance and relevant statutory factors (including market sustainability, workforce and quality considerations under s.5); the PSED had not been satisfied as residents and potential discriminatory impacts were not considered; and the Decision gave no adequate reasons and contained an unexplained evidential gap, rendering it irrational. The Art.8 claim failed because the claimant was not a 'victim' under s.7 HRA. Relief granted: the 4 July 2024 decision was quashed and the Council ordered to re-take the decision within 28 days; a declaration recorded the unlawfulness; costs were ordered for the claimant.

This is a first-instance judicial review. The claim succeeds in part. The 4 July 2024 decision is quashed and the defendant is ordered to re-take the decision within 28 days. The court found the decision unlawful for inadequate consultation (contrary to the Gunning principles), failure to have regard to and follow relevant Care Act 2014 guidance and statutory market-shaping duties (s.5 CA), breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 EqA) in failing to have due regard to impacts on residents, and irrationality for lack of reasons and unexplained evidential gaps. The Art.8 human-rights ground is dismissed for lack of victim status. Costs awarded to the claimant.