TDB, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey

A Care Act needs assessment is lawful if undertaken by assessors with the necessary skills, knowledge, competence and training. Specialist consultation is required only where the authority considers that the individual’s needs require it. That judgment is fact-specific, including where needs are complex or multiple.

A capacity assessment is required where concern remains about capacity to make a specific decision after appropriate support. Judicial review of an assessment considers the decision and information available when it was made. A report should be read as a whole and not subjected to over-zealous textual analysis. A policy is not unlawful merely because it is expressed in rigid terms; its application must be examined.

The claimant, a young adult with autism, ADHD and complex behavioural and daily-living needs, challenged the lawfulness of a Care Act assessment prepared by the London Borough of Haringey. He argued that the assessors lacked the necessary expertise, that specialist consultation and a capacity assessment were required, that aspects of the assessment were irrational, and that the defendant had applied an inflexible policy excluding him from specialist learning-disability services.

The claim concerned the defendant’s assessment of his future care and support needs after a decision that he was no longer eligible for health input from the Haringey Learning Disability Partnership. The central issues were whether the assessment complied with the statutory requirements concerning competence, training, consultation and capacity, and whether the impugned conclusions and policy approach were lawful.

1. The claim was dismissed. The assessment complied with the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 and applicable statutory guidance.
2. The decision whether further professional input was required was a matter for the defendant, particularly the professional judgment of the assessors. Regulation 5 did not require specialist input merely because the claimant had autism or complex needs. The guidance required a fact-specific consideration of whether additional expertise was needed. The evidence showed that the assessors were appropriately trained and experienced, and the decision to proceed without further input was lawful.
3. The claimant had been supported during the assessment and was presumed to have capacity. The assessors identified a lack of capacity concerning healthy sexual relationships, but there was no evidence of concern about capacity to make any other specific decision after appropriate support. The defendant was therefore entitled to proceed without a further capacity assessment.
4. The irrationality challenges failed. The reference to physical support needs was not a conclusion and was irrelevant when the assessment was read as a whole. The defendant had relied on the professional views of qualified persons concerning the claimant’s learning difficulties; it had not independently endorsed an irrational conclusion. The decision that the claimant could access mainstream healthcare with support was supported by the information available when the decision was made.
5. The policy challenge also failed. The defendant was not applying the policy when conducting the Care Act assessment, because eligibility for the specialist service had already been decided. In any event, the evidence demonstrated a flexible approach focused on which service would best meet the claimant’s needs. There was no sensible basis for requiring consideration of a referral back for a fresh specialist assessment.

First instance judicial review decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.