header-logo header-logo

03 December 2009 / Ed Mitchell , Clive Lewis KC
Issue: 7396 / Categories: Features , Community care
printer mail-detail

Lethal weapon?

New equality legislation has strengthened the hand of challengers to community care charging decisions, say Ed Mitchell & Clive Lewis QC

The equality legislation has provided a new weapon in the armoury of those who wish to challenge community care charging decisions.

However, it remains very difficult to mount a successful legal challenge to a carefully planned decision to introduce or increase charges. The latest case to illustrate this point was the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Domb & Others) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 941.

Hammersmith & Fulham LBC had decided to reduce its council tax by 3% and so had to make savings or increase revenue. So far as the contribution of home care services to balancing the books was concerned, the council decided that it either had to raise eligibility thresholds (provide fewer services) or introduce charges.

Following a consultation exercise, the council decided to start charging although a means test would be applied so that poorer service users would continue to pay nothing.

Three

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