R (Cowl and Others) v Plymouth City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER |
| Judgment Date | 14 September 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 734 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1832/01 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 14 September 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 734 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Scott Baker
Case No: CO/1832/01
Miss Jenni Richards (instructed by Mackintosh Duncan) for the Claimants.
Mr Roger McCarthy Q.C. (instructed by Plymouth Legal Practice) for the Defendants.
Seven of the eight Claimants are residents of Granby Way, a residential care home owned and run by Plymouth City Council (the Defendants). Sadly the eighth, Douglas Blacksell, has died in the very recent past i.e. since the conclusion of submissions. Their ages vary between 77 and 92 with the exception of Peter Monk who is only 66. They are all frail and in poor health and have lived at Granby Way for differing periods, the longest being about 9 years. They seek judicial review of the Defendants' decision of 5 February 2001 to ratify the decision of its Social Services Committee of 23 January 2001 to close Granby Way. The Claimants all regard Granby Way as their home and are extremely upset at the prospect of having to live elsewhere. It is contended that at least three of the Claimants had a legitimate expectation that Granby Way would be their home for life, following assurances to that effect by employees of the Defendants.
The decision giving rise to the present claim emanates from the Defendants' Social Services Committee's need to reduce its projected overspend. It met on 21 July 2000 and approved a pruning of £993,000 from its budget and this included the closure/transfer of service of specified residential units for older people (subject to consultation) of £450,000. The decision was ratified by the full Council on the 11 th September 2000, subject to an adjustment of £16,000 that is irrelevant for present purposes. On 21 November 2000 two homes were formally selected for consultation on closure Torybrook and Granby Way. In the meantime on 13 November 2000 a letter was sent to the individual Claimants saying consultation would take place on possible closure but that no decision to close would be made until after full consultation with them and with their relatives. Existing services would be maintained until a decision, after completion of the consultation process, at the full Council meeting on 5 May 2001. In the event of a decision to close Granby Way being taken, individual residents would be involved in selecting a suitable alternative residential home. A similar letter was sent to relevant relatives and care managers.
This letter was followed by another letter on 11 December 2000 to Mrs Beresford's son and daughter-in-law and to other relatives saying the consultation process was being put into place and that residents would have their needs reviewed over the following couple of weeks prior to a meeting of the Social Services Committee on 23 January 2001. The councillors would base their decision on the residents' needs and views.
Each of the Claimants was seen and a review document completed. The Council was conscious of the need to consider whether any of the residents had been promised a home for life and accordingly they were asked about this. Mr Cross and Mr Blacksell thought that they had. Mr Monk was almost sure that he had been told this and he believed that it would be so. Mrs Downing said she was told: “This is your home now.” Mrs Beresford said no one said so but she thought that it would be. Mr Cowl took it to be, but there was nothing in writing. Mrs Ellis didn't know and Mr Heard answered in the negative. Each of the Claimant's interviews is well documented and the documents illustrate that the Defendants were careful to obtain relevant information about them which included their background, health and abilities as well as the most recent care plan. No one reading the documents could be left in any doubt of the Claimants' need to live in a safe and secure environment, their desire to remain at Granby Way and the potential detriment to them of a move.
Each of the relatives was sent a questionnaire under cover of a letter of 20 December 2000 requiring a response by 5 January 2001. The letter pointed out that the questionnaire was being sent on legal advice, albeit many relatives had already stated their views. Complaint is made that the timescale was unduly short bearing in mind the time of year. The questionnaire is the same as that which was discussed with the residents themselves. Some relatives have expressed dissatisfaction with the consultation process on the basis that it was inadequate.
On the 12 January 2001 the Director for Social and Housing Services produced a report on the future proposals for Torybrook and Granby Way. Its summary runs thus:
“This report outlines the process undertaken and the results of the consultation on the proposal to close Torybrook and Granby residential homes. It details the outcome of the needs assessment completed on each resident. It concludes that all services currently provided to meet the needs of both the residents and other services users could be delivered elsewhere.”
It recommended that the committee resolve, giving due weight to the consultation exercise responses and the result of the needs assessment process:
i) to relocate all residential and non residential services away from Torybrook and Granby to enable revenue budget savings, and
ii) to authorise officers to put into affect a plan to enable the relocation of services in full consultation with residents, services users and their relatives.
The report went into some detail with regard to both Granby Way and Torybrook. It referred to the eleven residents of Granby saying that the majority did not understand why it was necessary to close it, they liked being there and were unhappy about moving. Three said they were told it would be a home for life: Two thought it would and the remainder said they had not been told this. Some expressed concern whether a new home would meet their needs.
The report recorded at paragraph 6 that the normal assessment tool was used to conduct a full needs assessment of all residents and that this included social and personal care needs as well as, where appropriate, medical and nursing needs. All the needs could be met in other residential homes. On the “home for life” issue the report concluded there was no evidence that a belief Granby would be a home for life was more than an assumption by the residents and their relatives that they would not need to move again. In particular no one had produced anything in writing promising a home for life.
The officer's advice was that the case for closing the two homes was made out. No resident needs to live there in order to receive the services he or she had been assessed as requiring. The newly reassessed needs could be readily met in a number of alternative placements. The inevitable disruption that would be caused by moving would be manageable.
An updated report followed a meeting with leading counsel, Mr Richard Gordon Q.C, on 19 January 2001. This is to be found at page 134 and following of the Claimants' bundle. This report records that Council had identified a number of issues that were critical in legal terms to the success of the whole process. These included the following.
• the committee had to begin its meeting with an open mind. No decision had yet been taken. The views of all concerned had to be considered;
• that there has been a proper assessment of the needs of all the service users;
• that alternative placements were available to satisfy the needs of every service user;
• that consultation was adequate;
• that no unequivocal promise of a home for life had been made to any resident;
• that the Human Rights Act 1998 is observed;
• that the decision made by the committee is properly made;
A number of points from the report bear mention. These are:
• reassessment of the need for services of everyone affected by the possible closures had been carried out following the Government Guidance to Health Authorities on moving frail and elderly patients;
• if risk of an adverse effect on someone's health was identified the Council would have to consider how to overcome it;
• should it be decided to proceed with closure a consultant geriatrician would be asked to advise on risk management to ensure that no one suffered adverse effects on their health as a result of any move;
• in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary there was no determinative evidence of a home for life to any resident which would require the Council to maintain residential services at either home. Despite being asked specifically for the evidence on which the residents concerned based their claims, none was forthcoming. The files of all the residents had been inspected but there was nothing in any of them to suppose a “home for life” promise. Paragraph 8.4 states that no one at Granby had made such a claim. This however is incorrect, although it maybe that the reference has to be read in the context of the previous sentence that no one had given the social workers any written evidence of a promise of a ‘home for life’;
• a list of factors that the committee ought to take into consideration that had been set out in the initial report was updated. Miss Richards, for the Claimants, complains that there is still no reference to the need to take into account the residents' psychological needs.
On 23 January 2001 the Social Services Committee met with the benefit of both the report and the updated report and resolved as recommended i.e. to close Torybrook and Granby Way relocating the services elsewhere and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Haggerty and Others) v St Helens Borough Council
...they would be able to remain for the rest of their lives. It was set up as a result of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (Cowl) v. Plymouth City Council [2002] 1 WLR 803. The remit of the Panel was agreed by the parties in the light of the views of the Court of Appeal on how this pa......
-
Hepburn v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
...having instead sought reinstatement by a non-litigious route, namely by exercising his statutory right of appeal. This court in R(Cowl) v Plymouth City Council [2002] 1 WLR 803 stressed the importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible. If in cases like the present the court finds un......
-
R (Kemp) v Denbighshire Local Health Board
...waiting in the wings. As to costs, she contended that there was an alternative remedy which had not been pursued. Thus in R (Cowl and Others) v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935, [2002] 1 WLR 803, Lord Woolf MR emphasised, at paragraph 14, that even if the alternative procedures d......
-
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust
...8 Strong support for the use of ADR in general, and mediation in particular, has been given by the courts in cases such as R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935, [2002] 1 WLR 803, Dunnett v Railtrack plc [2002] EWCA Civ 303, [2002] 1 WLR 2434 and Hurst v Leeming [2001] EWH......