Heart of Wales Care Limited & Ors v The Council of the City and County of Swansea

Mandatory requirements in a code issued under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 may generate public law duties enforceable by judicial review, even where the decision also concerns contractual fees. A local authority setting care-home fees must understand the full costs of care, collaborate with providers to establish fair and sustainable costs, and use a transparent fee-setting process. Consultation may be required where failure to obtain material information would be conspicuously unfair. The authority need not achieve a particular uplift. Where the decision was materially unlawful, a declaration may require it to be reconsidered.

The claimants, commercial residential care providers, challenged the defendant council’s 6.1% uplift to care-home fees for 2025–2026. They alleged breaches of mandatory requirements in the Welsh commissioning Code, inadequate consultation, failure to take material considerations into account and, by late amendment, lack of delegated authority. The council relied on the contractual nature of the arrangements, delay, alternative remedies and the statutory no-substantial-difference test. The central issues were whether the Code requirements were judicially reviewable, whether the council had properly investigated the full costs of care and consulted providers, and what relief was appropriate.

1. Public law status. The mandatory Code requirements were issued under section 145 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. Because section 147 was expressly disapplied, the council had to comply with relevant requirements. Breach therefore raised public law issues amenable to judicial review, notwithstanding the contractual setting.
2. Full costs and collaboration. The council failed to determine how changes to employers’ national insurance contributions would affect individual providers. It knew that this depended on staffing and earnings information which could only be obtained by asking providers. That failure meant it neither understood the full cost of care nor collaborated to understand fair and sustainable costs.
3. Transparency and consultation. The 6.1% uplift was not sufficiently explained by reference to the available cost information. Consultation was required as an important means of satisfying the Code’s requirements and because proceeding without investigating the national insurance impact was conspicuously unfair. Other complaints about consultation were rejected on the facts.
4. Other issues. The council had adequately considered wages, inflation and related matters in the context of its three-year process. The late challenge to authority was refused. Time was extended by three weeks because of uncertainty caused by the absence of a proper decision record. Alternative remedies were neither convenient nor effective, and it was not highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same.
5. Relief. A declaration was granted that the decision was unlawful. The council was required to take the decision again, complying with its duties to understand costs, collaborate with providers and act transparently.