Social Welfare


Abuse of power - care homes - legitimate expectation - overriding interests - reliance - residential care - closure of care homes - local authority proposals for alternative care facilities



R (on the application of Thomas Lindley) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: QBD (Admin) (Mr Justice Hodge):

21 September 2006



The claimant disabled person (L) applied for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision not to send him to a particular care facility.



L had resided for 20 years in a care home run by the local authority. He suffered from cerebral palsy, arthritis, and dysarthia, he was doubly incontinent, and he had restricted movement. When the local authority proposed to close the care home, it communicated its intentions to the residents and assured them, including L, that they would be able to move to a new facility and have their care needs met there.



The residents had begun judicial review proceedings, amounting to a comprehensive challenge to the local authority's decision to close the home, which all except L abandoned. He alleged there had been an inadequate nursing assessment by the local authority, that he had very severe care needs, and that the new care facility would be inadequate to meet them.



The local authority's nursing assessment of L was changed to determine that he required 24-hour care by two workers in a residential setting - a level of care unavailable at the new facility - and the local authority concluded that L would be unable to move there.



The proceedings were amended to this case. L contended that the local authority had created a legitimate expectation that he would be moved to the new care home and have his assessed needs met there whatever the level of need, and that to frustrate that expectation was so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power. The local authority contended that, in the circumstances, the correspondence had not created a legitimate expectation, and that it would be contrary to L's welfare needs for it to be required to move L to the new care facility.



Held, on the facts, it was clear that for the bulk of the period since the assurances had been made, L had not relied on them, and that they had not created a legitimate expectation that was enforceable. The assurances given to L by the local authority had to be considered in context. It was clear that, from the date on which the assurances had been made until the initial judicial review claim had been abandoned, L had not wanted the expectation of the move to the new care facility to be implemented.



It was also clear that, from the abandonment of the initial judicial review claim until the second judicial review claim, L had accepted that the care facility could not provide for his care needs. L had not relied on the assurances to his detriment. Moreover, the local authority's knowledge of L's needs had developed since it made the assurances, and it was right for it to have changed its conclusions as to how L's needs were to be met. Furthermore, even if there was an enforceable expectation, it was contrary to L's welfare needs for the local authority to be required to move L to the new care facility, R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [1999] LGR 703 considered.



Application refused.



Parishil Patel (instructed by Hossacks) for the claimant; Roger McCarthy QC (instructed by the local authority solicitor) for the defendant.