High Court quashes decision by health body to end £600k funding for respite centre
A High Court judge has quashed a decision by the Hertfordshire Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group (HVCCG) to remove £600,000 in funding for a respite services for children with complex needs, over a failure to consult with Hertfordshire County Council.
The claimants in Juttla & Ors, R (on the application of) v Hertfordshire County Council & Ors [2018] EWHC 267 had brought five other grounds of challenge in relation to the termination of funding for the Nascot Lawn centre in Watford but these were all dismissed by Mr Justice Mostyn. These involved claims that there had been:
- Failure to assess the needs of users
- Failure to consult
- Breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
- Breach of section 11 of the Children Act 2004
- Breach of Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights taken with Article 3 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child
On the first and successful ground, the judge said the decision by HVCCG to withdraw the funding “was made on an incorrect legal basis with the consequence that it has not complied with its legal obligations under regulation 23” of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013.
The judge said HVCCG “must now comply with its legal duty formally to consult Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) about its proposal to withdraw that funding. That should lead to a collaborative dialogue.
“If no agreement is reached HCC can refer the controversy to the Secretary of State who has far-reaching powers to make a merits-based decision on the issue. I am satisfied that aside from the first ground the complaints made by the claimants about the process which led to the decision are not made out.”
Alex Rook, a partner at Irwin Mitchell who acted for the claimants, said: “Ever since the CCG announced its intention to withdraw funding for Nascot Lawn the families have shown great strength and determination to fight this decision, not once but twice.
“Despite concerns having been raised numerous times about the legality of the decision, the CCG continued to press ahead with its plans, meaning the families had no alternative but to take their fight to the High Court.”
Rook added: “We have always argued on their behalf that the CCG and the local authority should work together to decide how they can continue to operate this vital community service and are delighted that the court has today endorsed this view.
“The CCG has twice been told by the High Court following our submissions that its actions were unlawful and the decision to withdraw funding from Nascot Lawn has been quashed for a second time. We only hope that this time the CCG co-operates with the county council to ensure that Nascot Lawn stays open.”
In response to the judgment, HVCCG said it expected to start the relevant consultation "very soon" and makes its decision in the early part of May.
Dr Nicolas Small, a local GP and Chair of Herts Valleys CCG, said: “This decision that we made back in November, to stop funding services at Nascot Lawn, was one of the hardest we have had to make as a board. And we did this in the context of a very challenging financial environment, having to assess priorities in order to meet the financial requirements placed on us by law. That financial challenge continues.
“What we now need to do, in acknowledgment of the judge’s ruling, is to take time over the next six weeks to formally consult with our colleagues at the council in the format that the court has prescribed. We have started that process. Our consultation will remain thorough and genuine and results will be considered at a Herts Valleys CCG meeting in May.”
Dr Small added: “We do also need to acknowledge the five grounds on which the judge ruled in our favour. He made a particular point of noting that Herts Valleys CCG had carried out proper and appropriate public involvement. He stated that we had comprehensively assessed the needs of those children using the service, contrary to what had been claimed. The judge also stated that criticisms and allegations that we had contravened key pieces of legislation were not correct and he was keen to ensure his view was set out in full on those points. So, for example, he has ruled that we fully met our obligations under equalities law and the legislation on human rights and the rights of children.
“Whatever the outcome of this consultation and new decision, we continue to be concerned for the children and families who use Nascot Lawn respite services. Having made the decision last November, we had hoped this judicial review would bring the matter to a conclusion. We are committed to ensuring we comply with the judge’s ruling in full and we are keen to resolve this as soon as possible, so that a greater level of certainty can be provided particularly to the children and their families. In any event this judicial decision means that the service will be funded on the current basis until at least August 2018.”
