High Court quashes adult care cuts plan over unlawful policy

A local authority’s plans to implement cuts to its adult care provision were left in tatters today after the High Court ruled the policy drawn up was unlawful.

The Isle of Wight Council had intended to adopt a new eligibility threshold in April 2012, when it would only meet the care needs of either individuals with critical needs or those with substantial needs who were considered to be at greatest risk of not being able to remain at home safely.

However, Mrs Justice Lang quashed the policy on the grounds that:

• The policy itself was unlawful in that it was contrary to government guidance. It also did not comply with the Isle of Wight’s own internal guidance on how to assess the impact of the policy
• The council failed to have regard to the need to promote disability equality under s. 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when setting the policy.

The judge also said that the consultation was flawed in that it “provided insufficient information to enable those consulted to give intelligent consideration [of the proposals] and an intelligent response”.

The local authority said it accepted the decision of Mrs Justice Lang and would not be appealing.

The case was brought by law firm Irwin Mitchell on behalf of two disabled men – JM, who has severe autism and brain damage, and NT, who has a-typical autism and a learning disability. The claimants, who are both 32 years old, require 24-hour care from their family and the authorities.

Irwin Mitchell lawyer Alex Rook said the judgment would provide clarity for thousands of disabled people on the Island who stood to lose all or part of their social care packages under the proposed changes.

He said: “Naturally our clients’ families are delighted that the High Court has quashed the council’s policy.

“The judge has ruled that the consultation the council undertook did not involve proper consideration of the practical detail of what the move to this new policy would entail even were it lawful, and the council had very little information about the impact that this would have on people’s lives before it when it took this decision.

“The reality is that the council simply did not know what the effects would be – other than how much money would be saved – and so the court has declared the council also to be in breach of its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.”

In a joint statement Cllr David Pugh, leader of the Isle of Wight Council, and Cllr Roger Mazillius, cabinet member for adult social care, housing and community safety, said they were “naturally disappointed with this decision, having genuinely sought to undertake a thorough and proper process of consultation”.

The councillors said the authority had been required to make substantial budget savings within a short timeframe, while at the same time protecting those who were most vulnerable and in need of support.

“We also had to look to the future and position ourselves to face the demographic and financial challenges that the coming years will bring,” they added.

Cllr Pugh and Cllr Mazillius said the Isle of Wight would now spend time reflecting on the implications for both service users and the wider council budget before deciding on the next course of action.

“Throughout this process we tried to ensure that the methods used to consult and the content of that consultation would be understood by residents,” they argued.

“We worked closely with a range of representative community groups to compile the consultation literature and tried to create the right balance between sharing information and not overwhelming people with too much complex detail. We also allowed a full 90-day period for people to consider the proposals and make their response.”

But they accepted Mrs Justice Lang’s decision that the council did not provide sufficient information and that, in its attempts to explain what was a complex decision, "the authority unintentionally breached some elements of the guidance".

The councillors added: “We will immediately comply with the judge’s ruling and return to the previous eligibility threshold whilst we consider our next steps. We will not be appealing the decision.”

Isle of Wight staff will not make contact with the 32 services users directly affected by the changes and offer them a reassessment of their needs.

The council had anticipated saving £2.5m through the changes to eligibility thresholds and charging. It warned that it faces a £33m funding gap as a result of cuts to government funding, inflation and increased need.

The Isle of Wight case was the latest in a series of legal actions over local authority changes to eligibility thresholds and cuts to adult care services.

Birmingham City Council’s changes  were also held to be unlawful, but challenges to the proposals of Manchester City Council and Lancashire County Council were unsuccessful.

Philip Hoult