header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008 / Ed Mitchell
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Community care
printer mail-detail

Community Care law update

Community care

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

More and more social services authorities are tightening their eligibility criteria for community care services. In December 2007, the High Court in R (on the application of Chavda and others) v Harrow London Borough Council [2007] EWHC 3064 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 337 (Dec), considered whether or not it was lawful for an authority to restrict eligibility to persons with a “critical” need for services under the Department of Health’s Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) guidance.

The court held that, in principle, it was lawful for an authority to restrict eligibility to those with critical needs. However, it also held that ’s decision to restrict eligibility was unlawful because it had failed, in taking that decision, to discharge its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). Section 49A of DDA 1995 required “in carrying out its functions to have regard to the need to…promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons”. The court held that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll