Birmingham faces legal action over plans to limit care to those with "critical" needs

A legal action is to be brought on behalf of a 65-year-old woman with significant learning disabilities against Birmingham City Council over its proposals to limit care to only those with ‘critical’ needs.

The case is thought to be one of the first of its kind over proposed local authority adult care cuts, although the claimant’s law firm – Irwin Mitchell – said it was acting for a number of other vulnerable people in other parts of the UK.

Birmingham wrote to the woman – Ms A – at the beginning of February, warning that the changes could affect the care and support she receives at her residential care home in Solihull. She was contacted as part of a consultation exercise which is due to end on 2 March 2011.

Earlier this month the council said its adults and communities service area would implement a “bold new operating model based on investment in prevention and re-enablement, with limited core funding directed to people who have limited funds and critical needs”.

The announcement was part of a package of measures aimed at saving £212m in 2011/12.

Irwin Mitchell, instructed by Ms A’s sister-in-law, said it would be seeking “an urgent judicial review on the lawfulness of the consultation process”, adding that it believed the case was “one of many where councils are making decisions to cut public services whilst ignoring residents’ legal rights”.

Polly Sweeney, solicitor in the firm’s public law team, said: “This is sadly one of a number of examples we are seeing at the moment where local councils under pressure to cut costs are riding roughshod over the needs and legal rights of some of society’s most vulnerable individuals.”

The firm said the grounds for the JR were that Birmingham had failed to undertake a lawful consultation and pay due regard to the need to promote equality under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

It claimed that the authority’s consultation lacked clarity in relation to the groups affected by the proposal to exclude care for those with ‘substantial’ care needs. The document also did not address what the options are for those people who will have their care package removed, the firm said.

Irwin Mitchell will also seek to argue that “the claimant’s human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights could be severely compromised as the proposals threaten her right to a private life and her ability to access essential support and care to enable her to live safely and maintain a level of independence.”

The firm also “questions whether the council has considered alternatives such as raising council tax and indeed whether it needs to make the cuts in the first place”.

Irwin Mitchell’s Sweeney said cutting vital care provision for the disabled and elderly had not been properly justified. “Although we accept that the council is forced to make difficult decisions in relation to the allocation of its budget and this is part of a legitimate aim to create economic well being for the UK as a whole, we do not accept that the proposed changes to the provision of adult social care are proportionate to that aim,” she said.

Sweeney added that the firm had been in touch with Birmingham to request specific information in relation to some of the points raised in the council’s initial document.

“We have also asked that the consultation process be put on hold and the process revised in line with our recommendations,” she said. “Unfortunately, we have not been satisfied with their response and therefore our client has no other option but to launch proceedings.”

Irwin Mitchell said the case would come to court on Monday 28 February unless the council agreed to keep funds in reserve when the budget is due for approval at the Council on Tuesday 1 March 2010.

A spokeswoman for Birmingham CC declined to comment on the prospective legal action.

Philip Hoult