header-logo header-logo

Harsh but fair?

29 November 2013 / Tim Spencer-Lane
Issue: 7586 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Challenging a local authority on procedural grounds can prove difficult, as Tim Spencer-Lane reports

In an era of prolonged economic recession and public sector cuts, the challenges for both service users and local authorities are considerable. The tension between, on the one hand, supporting disabled people to live full and independent lives in the community, and on the other, local authorities’ obligation to constrain expenditure and remain within budget, was illustrated in the recent High Court case R(D) v Worcestershire County Council [2013] EWHC 2490 (Admin).

 

In 2012, the council adopted a policy under which the amount of money that is provided to support a disabled person living in the community would be based on the costs of meeting the same person’s needs in residential care. It was a policy which the council had already applied since 2008 to older people. Disabled groups argued that it would result in high levels of unmet need and coercive institutionalisation, because domiciliary care could not be provided which costs less than the equivalent costs of residential care.

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll