Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31LocalGovernmentLawyer Dispute Resolution 2016 29 Fears of an increase in legal challenges to local authority decisions following implementation of the Care Act 2014 (CA 2014) on 1 April 2015, may now have been tempered as one year on there are just three reported judicial review cases addressing the new care and support provisions. That does not mean adult social care lawyers are any less busy than they were prior to the CA 2014 coming into force, since a significant proportion of an adult social care lawyer's time is spent responding to pre-action letters and advising client departments on complaints and other expressions of dissatisfaction about service provision. That will continue to be the case. The relatively smooth transition to the new legal framework is largely due to the carefully co-ordinated and collaborative national implementation programme spearheaded by the Department of Health (DH), the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS), supported by regional implementation programmes. Perhaps solicitors in private practice are still acclimatising to the new legal framework. Areas of uncertainty There are, of course, new and well established areas of uncertainty that continue to present scope for legal challenge. General duty to promote well-being Failure to comply with the general duty to promote individual well-being in section 1 of the CA 2014 was identified early on as a potentially popular ground for challenge. However in R (Collins) v Nottinghamshire County Council and another [2016] EWHC 996 (Admin) the court rejected an argument that the council had failed to comply with its duty under section 1, when it decided to suspend a direct payment support service. The well-being duty in that case was considered in the context of section 1(3)(g) (the need to protect people from abuse and neglect), and the council's responsibility to other vulnerable people. The court held that because the council's action had taken into account the sensitive nature of the client group it was dealing with, it had effectively complied with the general duty in section 1 of the CA 2014. Eligibility and NRPF cases Cases involving people with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) have contributed significantly to the existing body of adult social care case law and it is therefore unsurprising that the two decided cases on the CA 2014 involved NRPF claimants. SG v Hackney [2015] EWHC 2579 (Admin) was the first case to be heard on the provision of accommodation under the CA 2014. In that case, the judge contrasted the provisions in section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (NAA 1948) with the framework in the CA 2014 which has replaced it. He confirmed that the leading cases on the provision of accommodation pre- 1 April 2015 are still authoritative and that the principles that they established (that local authorities must ignore accommodation provided under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 when they are assessing a person's need for accommodation under the CA 2014 and that services provided by the local authority must be accommodation related) still apply under the CA 2014. GS v London Borough of Camden [2016] EWHC 1962 (Admin) similarly clarified that the principles established in M v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52 and R (SL v Westminster CC [2013] UKSC 27 still held good; a need for mere accommodation does not trigger a duty to provide accommodation notwithstanding the change in terminology from "care and attention" in section 21 of the NAA 1948, to "care and support" in the CA 2014. Therefore the claimant's need for accommodation did not trigger a duty to provide accommodation under the CA 2014 because she had no eligible needs. However the court held, somewhat controversially, that the council had the power to provide accommodation to the claimant who was an EEA national (and therefore prohibited from receiving care and support by virtue of Schedule 3 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002) using its general power of competence in section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011), and that the breach of the claimant's rights under article 3 of the ECHR that would ensue if accommodation were not provided converted this power into a duty to provide her with accommodation. The decision is likely to alarm local authorities since it appears to mean that the general power in section 1 of the LA 2011 can be used to provide the type of care and support that would normally be provided under the CA 2014, even in cases where the person concerned has no eligible needs. The decision will undoubtedly be revisited in any future litigation on this point. Disputes between authorities: ordinary residence and the continuity of care provisions Ordinary residence is an area that has always presented fertile ground for dispute, especially between local authorities. Such disputes (where they Mary-Anne Anaradoh looks at the effect that the new social care framework introduced by the Care Act and other recent legislation may have on where and how disputes arise. The challenges ahead