Disabled adult wins High Court battle with council over charges for services

A disabled adult has successfully challenged in the High Court aspects of a county council’s policy on charging for adult non-accommodation services.

The case of KM, R (On the Application Of) v Northamptonshire County Council (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 482 (Admin) concerned Northamptonshire’s ‘Fairer Contributions Policy’.

The claimant, K, is 35 and has Downs syndrome. She lives at home with her parents and has severe learning disabilities and other mental health problems. She needs supervision 24 hours a day, and support with all aspects of personal care.

K receives a care package from the local authority that includes support for non-residential care services. She is currently charged £24.70 per week by the council for those services. K meanwhile receives £178.15 from the Department of Work and Pensions.

The claimant’s legal team argued that the policy adopted by Northamptonshire was unclear and did not comply with guidance of the Secretary of State.

The issue between the parties revolved around: (i) the meaning of the Secretary of State’s guidance; and (ii) whether the county council’s policy reflected it, and did so with clarity.

Mr Justice Gilbart, sitting in the High Court in Birmingham, ruled in favour of the claimant.

He said: “The current method used by NCC [Northamptonshire] in what it perceives to be pursuance of its policy adds about one third to the current level of contribution. Had the effect of the differences been to leave K with much the same level of contribution, I might have considered not exercising my discretion in favour of the grant of relief.

“But I am not sitting as a Tribunal determining the appropriate level of payments or contributions, but as a Judge of the Administrative Court determining whether a policy is lawful. It may be that in K's case, the difference is a slender one on one way of looking at the case. But the point that is made on her behalf about the policy may affect large numbers of others, whose contributions are also being exaggerated through NCC's failure to apply the National Guidance or to make its policy sufficiently clear.”

Irwin Mitchell lawyer Anne-Marie Irwin, who represented K, said: “This is an important decision which showed that she was being charged more by her local authority than the law allows. The ruling means she retains more of her own already limited income in order to get the best from life and meet the needs she has as a result of her disability.

“It is believed government guidance in relation to this issue has been open to varying interpretations, meaning the policies of local authorities across England and Wales could differ significantly. This judgment spells an end to such inconsistencies and could have a major bearing on the amount that vulnerable members of society are asked to pay towards their essential care needs.”

A spokesman for Northamptonshire said: “We are happy that our fair charging policy is both legally robust and fair. While there was an issue over the application of Government guidelines on the relevant regulations the county council did have the discretion to do otherwise providing that this could be justified.

“The consequence of the decision is that the county council has been given some time to reconsider what is one element of the policy and see whether it wishes to continue with that stance, which it is able to do, despite there being a potential difference in the government guidance.

“We will review the policy and decide if any changes should be made – just as we do on a regular basis.”

Jonathan Auburn of 39 Essex Chambers was instructed by Irwin Mitchell to appear for KM.