"Care and support" and accommodation

Lee Parkhill considers a recent High Court ruling on accommodation and the need for 'care and support' under the Care Act.

The case of R (GS) v London Borough of Camden considered whether a need for accommodation can, itself, be a need for ‘care and support’, under the Care Act.

The court held that 'a need for care and support' does not include a need for accommodation, see para. 28. This confirms, and slightly elaborates, on the decision in R(SG) v Haringey, and will no doubt be welcomed by local authorities.

The court also considered whether, when assessing someone under the Act, the local authority needs to disregard any interim accommodation being provided by the authority. The claimant was in accommodation provided, without prejudice, during the assessment. She argued that the defendant had failed to consider how she could meet the Care Act eligibility ‘outcomes’ if she did not have the accommodation being provided by the local authority.

The court rejected the challenge. The court concluded that that there is no legal obligation to disregard accommodation when considering the application of the eligibility criteria. Where accommodation-related services are provided it is the services that are to be disregarded not the accommodation per se. The court emphasised that the ‘outcomes’ in the eligibility criteria are concerned with an adults’ ability to undertake various activities, such as ‘maintaining a habitable home environment’ or 'accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering'. The eligibility criteria are not, the court said, concerned with identifying a need for accommodation or work opportunities to be provided (see para. 36 – 38).

The court dismissed the claimant’s Care Act challenge. However, it went on to hold that the defendant had a power to provide accommodation under s. 1 of the Localism Act 2011 and found, on the facts, that the power had become a duty as accommodation was required to avoid a breach of the claimant’s Convention rights.

The claimant’s success on Convention rights grounds is fact specific. The judgment as to the approach to Care Act duties will however be of wider relevance.

Lee Parkhill is a barrister at 4-5 Gray's Inn Square. He appeared for Camden Council in this case.