Housing, Community Care Housing, Community Care and Human Rights Updateand Human Rights Update

The Last Year of Community The Last Year of Community Care CasesCare Cases

The interplay between residential care and attention and health The interplay between residential care and attention and health carecare

Interplay between provision made by local social Interplay between provision made by local social services authorities, under section 21 of the services authorities, under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, and the National National Assistance Act 1948, and the National Health Service and the extent to which it can be Health Service and the extent to which it can be said that a need which is met by the latter is to said that a need which is met by the latter is to be treated, for purposes of the former, as being be treated, for purposes of the former, as being “otherwise available”“otherwise available”R (on the application of (1) RASIM PAJAZITI (2) R (on the application of (1) RASIM PAJAZITI (2) HYLKIJE PAJAZITI) v LEWISHAM LONDON HYLKIJE PAJAZITI) v LEWISHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILBOROUGH COUNCIL, Newman J , Newman J [2007] EWHC 1874 (Admin) [2007] EWHC 1874 (Admin)Appeal 29/30 OctoberAppeal 29/30 October

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF M) V SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL

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 PB (CLAIMANT) v HARINGEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (DEFENDANT)(DEFENDANT)

C was not eligible for assistance under the C was not eligible for assistance under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7Housing Act 1996 Part 7 because of her immigration status. because of her immigration status. S. 21 of the 1985 Act had to be exercised in conformity with Part 7 of S. 21 of the 1985 Act had to be exercised in conformity with Part 7 of the 1996 Act. the 1996 Act. The local authority's decision that P was not entitled to assistance 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 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 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, 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 and because it was not entitled to rely on P being able to avoid destitution and degradation by returning to Jamaica.destitution and degradation by returning to Jamaica.

GORDON BINOMUGISHA v SOUTHWARK LONDON GORDON BINOMUGISHA v SOUTHWARK LONDON

BOROUGH COUNCILBOROUGH COUNCIL [2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin) (Andrew Nicol QC)[2006] EWHC 2254 (Admin) (Andrew Nicol QC)Local authority had erred in law in its decision to Local authority had erred in law in its decision to terminate support for a 19-year-old Ugandan terminate support for a 19-year-old Ugandan national whose application for leave to remain in national whose application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of ECHR Art.8 the United Kingdom on the basis of ECHR Art.8 was still pending was still pending It should have asked itself whether that It should have asked itself whether that application was application was manifestly unfoundedmanifestly unfounded, rather , rather than asking itself the question that the secretary than asking itself the question that the secretary of state would have to answer in considering the of state would have to answer in considering the outstanding application for leave to remain outstanding application for leave to remain

R (on the application of (1) AW (2) A (3) Y) (Respondents) v (1) CROYDON R (on the application of (1) AW (2) A (3) Y) (Respondents) v (1) CROYDON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2) HACKNEY LONDON BOROUGH LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2) HACKNEY LONDON BOROUGH

COUNCIL (Appellants) & SSHDCOUNCIL (Appellants) & SSHD

[2007] EWCA Civ 266 [2007] EWCA Civ 266

Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 “hard cases” support 1999 “hard cases” support Immigration and Asylum (Provision of AccImmigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Rommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005 egulations 2005 to be disregarded for purposes of s.21 to be disregarded for purposes of s.21 NAA 1948NAA 1948

Habitual residenceHabitual residence

R (LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH) v R (LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH; SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH; LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY (INTERESTED PARTY(INTERESTED PARTY)[2006] EWHC 2576 )[2006] EWHC 2576 (Admin) Charles J.(Admin) Charles J.

For the purposes of determining ordinary For the purposes of determining ordinary residence under ss. 21 and 24 of the 1948 Act residence under ss. 21 and 24 of the 1948 Act holding there is no material difference for these holding there is no material difference for these purposes between “normal”, “ordinary” and purposes between “normal”, “ordinary” and “habitual” residence. “habitual” residence.

LAMBETH LBC v IRENESCHILDLAMBETH LBC v IRENESCHILD

[2007] EWCA Civ 234[2007] EWCA Civ 234

local authority's community care local authority's community care assessment was not unlawful where in the assessment was not unlawful where in the circumstances there was no failure to circumstances there was no failure to address essential questions that were address essential questions that were required to be addressed under the Fair required to be addressed under the Fair Access to Care Services guidance and Access to Care Services guidance and there was no procedural impropriety there was no procedural impropriety

Age assessmentsAge assessments

R (on the application of A) v LIVERPOOL R (on the application of A) v LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCILCITY COUNCIL, [2007] EWHC 1477 , [2007] EWHC 1477 (Admin)(Admin)

Dental expert v Dr MichieDental expert v Dr Michie

Analysis of dental surgeon failed to Analysis of dental surgeon failed to adequately address variables that were adequately address variables that were indicative that A's dental progression indicative that A's dental progression might not correlate with his chronological might not correlate with his chronological age age

End of PresentationEnd of Presentation

Click Click herehere for next slide for next slide