High Court rejects judicial review challenge over Care Act assessment of needs

The claimant in VI, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lewisham [2018] EWHC 2180 was a 55-year-old woman with muscular dystrophy, who was bed and wheelchair-bound and required carer support for all personal care.

The challenged assessment, which was issued in draft form on 7 February 2018 and finalised on 27 March 2018, confirmed a reduction in her care package from 104 hours to 40 hours of care per week which in practice had occurred in August 2017.

The claimant argued that the assessment was irrational, and/or unlawful in that it failed to comply with the Care Act 2014 and associated regulations, because:

1. Lewisham’s conclusion that the claimant's needs for care and support could be met through a reduction of over 50% in her carer hours was irrational. The claimant's condition was degenerative and cogent reasons were therefore required for concluding that her care needs had reduced from the previously assessed level. The basis on which the defendant council asserted that the Claimant's needs had hitherto been 'over-provided' was seriously flawed;
2. The assessment failed to give proper consideration to the factors in section 9(4) of the Act, including the wellbeing factors in section 1(2);
3. Lewisham failed to have regard to the need to prevent additional care needs arising through deterioration in the claimant's mental health and physical wellbeing (section 1(3));
4. The assessment failed properly to assess the claimant's care needs against the eligibility outcomes as set out in regulations made under the Act; and
5. The council failed to cooperate with NHS services, particularly with occupational therapy and physiotherapy, in assessing the claimant's needs and the best way to prevent care needs arising in the future.

The final relief sought by the claimant included (i) a declaration that the assessment was unlawful; (ii) an order quashing the assessment and requiring the defendant to undertake a fresh assessment.

However, Andrew Henshaw QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dismissed the claim on all grounds.