Housing, Community Care
and Human Rights Update
The Last Year of Community
Care Cases
The interplay between residential care and attention and health
care
Interplay between provision made by local social
services authorities, under section 21 of the
National Assistance Act 1948, and the National
Health Service and the extent to which it can be
said that a need which is met by the latter is to
be treated, for purposes of the former, as being
“otherwise available”
R (on the application of (1) RASIM PAJAZITI (2)
HYLKIJE PAJAZITI) v LEWISHAM LONDON
BOROUGH COUNCIL, Newman J
[2007] EWHC 1874 (Admin)
Appeal 29/30 October
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF M) V SLOUGH
BOROUGH COUNCIL
[2006] EWCA Civ 655
Dismissing the local authority’s appeal, the Court of
Appeal held that to construe "care and attention"
within the meaning of s.21 in the narrow way
suggested by the local authority would, in the
present context, fly in the face of the way in which
the courts consistently addressed s.21(1)(a)
since the legislative changes following R v
Westminster City Council, R v Westminster City
Council ex parte M applied. The judge's
reasoning to that approach was not open to
challenge. (2) The judge's approach on the
s.21(1A) issue and his application of the
appropriate law could not be faulted. The House
of Lords subsequently granted leave to appeal
and the appeal is pending.
PB (CLAIMANT) v HARINGEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
(DEFENDANT)
C was not eligible for assistance under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7
because of her immigration status.
S. 21 of the 1985 Act had to be exercised in conformity with Part 7 of
the 1996 Act.
The local authority's decision that P was not entitled to assistance
under s.21 of the 1948 Act was legally flawed because it had failed to
consider whether her need for care and assistance was or would be
solely due to destitution or its effects under s.21(1A) of the 1948 Act,
and because it was not entitled to rely on P being able to avoid
destitution and degradation by returning to Jamaica.
GORDON BINOMUGISHA v SOUTHWARK LONDON
BOROUGH COUNCIL
[2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin) (Andrew Nicol QC)
Local authority had erred in law in its decision to
terminate support for a 19-year-old Ugandan
national whose application for leave to remain in
the United Kingdom on the basis of ECHR Art.8
was still pending
It should have asked itself whether that
application was manifestly unfounded, rather
than asking itself the question that the secretary
of state would have to answer in considering the
outstanding application for leave to remain
R (on the application of (1) AW (2) A (3) Y) (Respondents) v (1) CROYDON
LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2) HACKNEY LONDON BOROUGH
COUNCIL (Appellants) & SSHD
[2007] EWCA Civ 266
Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act
1999 “hard cases” support Immigration
and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation
to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations
2005 to be disregarded for purposes of
s.21 NAA 1948
Habitual residence
R (LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH) v
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH;
LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY
(INTERESTED PARTY)[2006] EWHC 2576
(Admin) Charles J.
For the purposes of determining ordinary
residence under ss. 21 and 24 of the 1948 Act
holding there is no material difference for these
purposes between “normal”, “ordinary” and
“habitual” residence.
LAMBETH LBC v IRENESCHILD
[2007] EWCA Civ 234
local authority's community care
assessment was not unlawful where in the
circumstances there was no failure to
address essential questions that were
required to be addressed under the Fair
Access to Care Services guidance and
there was no procedural impropriety
Age assessments
R (on the application of A) v LIVERPOOL
CITY COUNCIL, [2007] EWHC 1477
(Admin)
Dental expert v Dr Michie
Analysis of dental surgeon failed to
adequately address variables that were
indicative that A's dental progression might
not correlate with his chronological age
End of Presentation
Click here for next slide