R BARRY v SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE FORBES |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 3112 (Admin) |
| Date | 18 July 2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/62/2007 |
[2007] EWHC 3112 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Forbes
CO/62/2007
Miss L Findlay (instructed by Lodders, Stratford-upon-Avon) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr J Easton (instructed by Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Mr Vikram Sachdeva (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
(Approved by the Court)
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review following the refusal of permission on papers by Sullivan J on 3rd April 2007. When refusing permission on paper, Sullivan J said this:
"(1) The claim was not made promptly. In substance the claim challenges a policy which was adopted in August 2003 and maintained, after a review, on 2nd March 2006.
(2) In any event, the claim is not arguable for the reasons set out in the Acknowledgements of Service of the First and Second Defendants. In particular, the Claimant's reliance on the September 2002 Guidance is misplaced for the reasons given by the Second Defendant."
For the reasons which I will explain briefly, I agree with the observations of Sullivan J, and for those reasons, therefore, I would refuse the renewed application. However, it is necessary for me to explain briefly my reasons for coming to that conclusion.
In these proceedings the claimants seek permission to challenge the decision of the first defendant, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council ("the Council"), made on 6th October 2006, whereby it refused to pay the supporting people subsidy.
The facts are these.
The claimants are aged between 61 and 83 years of age. They are all long leaseholders residing at "The Blundellsands Classic", a development of Extra Care sheltered housing for retired people which is within the administrative area of the Council. The claimants moved to that property between March 2004 and September 2005. Each of the claimants is in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance at the middle or higher rates. Additionally, under the terms of his/her long lease, each of them is in receipt of "welfare services" and other housing related housing services for which a service charge is payable. Each claimant receives pension credit to cover the costs of the housing related services.
From 1st April 2003, the second defendant, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ("the Secretary of State"), has made the Council a grant to cover welfare services for those residents in its area. That grant is subject to conditions and directions and is to be applied in accordance with guidance issued under section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000.
On 12th September 2002 the Secretary of State issued guidance relating to leaseholders which provides that, amongst other things, "payment arrangements for new leaseholders with low incomes post April 2003 will need to be made", and suggested that those receiving the precursor to pension credit should "be passported to full payment by the Supporting People Administering Authority."
On 21st August 2003, the Council adopted an interim policy whereby residents moving into leasehold accommodation which has been built after 1st April 2003 should not be able to claim, or would not be eligible to claim, Supporting People Subsidy. That interim policy was confirmed by the Council on 2nd March 2006.
On various dates after March 2004 the claimants applied for Supporting People Subsidy from the Council. All applications have been refused. In the meantime, fresh guidance was issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the eligibility criteria.
The claimants appealed against the refusals. Their appeals were heard by the appeal panel on 26th April 2006 and dismissed on 11th July 2006.
It is convenient to quote condition 10 of the conditions and directions which apply to the grant in question. That condition is in the following terms:
"Special provision for leaseholders
(1) Where a service recipient receives support services under the terms of a lease and those terms impose a service charge in respect of services which are eligible service charges the administering authority may contribute towards the cost of those services by way of a direct payment to the service recipient in accordance with the policy it has developed under paragraph (2) below.
(2) An Administering authority shall publish a local policy approved by the Commissioning Body setting out:
(a) whether [a local authority approved by the commissioning body setting it out] will contribute toward the funding of the services mentioned in paragraph (1) above; and if so
(b) the eligibility criteria which must be satisfied before such a contribution will be made;
(c) the level of the contribution it will make and in what circumstances; and
(d) its arrangement for the monitoring of such services under condition 4.
(3) The eligibility criteria established under paragraph 2(b) shall include a requirement that the Administering Authority is of the view that the service represents value for money, is strategically relevant and of good quality.
(4) The eligibility criteria may...
To continue reading
Request your trial