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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll