here - Cornerstone Barristers

Housing, Community Care and Human Rights Update The Last Year of Community Care Cases

The interplay between residential care and attention and health care

Interplay between provision made by local social services authorities, under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, and the National Health Service and the extent to which it can be said that a need which is met by the latter is to be treated, for purposes of the former, as being “otherwise available” R (on the application of (1) RASIM PAJAZITI (2) HYLKIJE PAJAZITI) v LEWISHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL, Newman J [2007] EWHC 1874 (Admin) Appeal 29/30 October

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF M) V SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL

[2006] EWCA Civ 655 Dismissing the local authority’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that to construe "care and attention" within the meaning of s.21 in the narrow way suggested by the local authority would, in the present context, fly in the face of the way in which the courts consistently addressed s.21(1)(a) since the legislative changes following R v Westminster City Council, R v Westminster City Council ex parte M applied. The judge's reasoning to that approach was not open to challenge. (2) The judge's approach on the s.21(1A) issue and his application of the appropriate law could not be faulted. The House of Lords subsequently granted leave to appeal and the appeal is pending.

PB (CLAIMANT) v HARINGEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (DEFENDANT) C was not eligible for assistance under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 because of her immigration status. S. 21 of the 1985 Act had to be exercised in conformity with Part 7 of the 1996 Act. The local authority's decision that P was not entitled to assistance under s.21 of the 1948 Act was legally flawed because it had failed to consider whether her need for care and assistance was or would be solely due to destitution or its effects under s.21(1A) of the 1948 Act, and because it was not entitled to rely on P being able to avoid destitution and degradation by returning to Jamaica.

GORDON BINOMUGISHA v SOUTHWARK LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL

[2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin) (Andrew Nicol QC) Local authority had erred in law in its decision to terminate support for a 19-year-old Ugandan national whose application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of ECHR Art.8 was still pending It should have asked itself whether that application was manifestly unfounded, rather than asking itself the question that the secretary of state would have to answer in considering the outstanding application for leave to remain

R (on the application of (1) AW (2) A (3) Y) (Respondents) v (1) CROYDON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2) HACKNEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (Appellants) & SSHD

[2007] EWCA Civ 266 Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 “hard cases” support Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005 to be disregarded for purposes of s.21 NAA 1948

Habitual residence R (LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH; LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY (INTERESTED PARTY)[2006] EWHC 2576 (Admin) Charles J. For the purposes of determining ordinary residence under ss. 21 and 24 of the 1948 Act holding there is no material difference for these purposes between “normal”, “ordinary” and “habitual” residence.

LAMBETH LBC v IRENESCHILD [2007] EWCA Civ 234 local authority's community care assessment was not unlawful where in the circumstances there was no failure to address essential questions that were required to be addressed under the Fair Access to Care Services guidance and there was no procedural impropriety

Age assessments R (on the application of A) v LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL, [2007] EWHC 1477 (Admin) Dental expert v Dr Michie Analysis of dental surgeon failed to adequately address variables that were indicative that A's dental progression might not correlate with his chronological age

End of Presentation Click here for next slide