Reclaiming Motion By Terri Mccue For Judicial Review Against A Decision Of Glasgow City Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Pentland,Lord Glennie,Lord Justice Clerk |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSIH 51 |
| Docket Number | P422/19 |
| Date | 21 August 2020 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 21 August 2020 |
SECOND DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2020] CSIH 51
P422/19
Lord Justice Clerk
Lord Glennie
Lord Pentland
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LADY DORRIAN, the LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in the Reclaiming Motion
by
TERRI McCUE as guardian of ANDREW McCUE
Petitioner and Reclaimer
for
JUDICIAL REVIEW AGAINST A DECISION OF GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
__________________________
Petitioner and Reclaimer :Dailly, Sol Adv; Drummond Miller LLP
Respondent: Byrne; Morton Fraser LLP
21 August 2020
Introduction
[1] The reclaimer is the mother, carer and Guardian of Andrew McCue. Andrew is
25 years of age, has Down's Syndrome and lives with his parents. He is disabled within the
meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”). Accordingly he is entitled in
law to community care services from the respondent in terms of section 12A of the Social
Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (“the 1968 Act”) and section 5 of the Social Care (Self-directed
2
Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. The respondent has in place a “Support Plan” which provides
Andrew with non-personal care between 9am and 3pm during weekdays at certain
locations. The reclaimer does not challenge the Support Plan, which it is accepted
adequately meets Andrew’s needs as a disabled person which the respondent is under a
duty to meet. Given the nature of the issues in the case, the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (“SPSO”) was given permission to intervene and to lodge a written
submission.
[2] Sections 87(1) and (1A) of the 1968 Act provide local authorities with a power to levy
a charge for services they provide, so long as the charge is reasonable and the service user
has the means to pay. The respondent does so in terms of a charging policy, under which an
individual will only require to make any payment where his income is in excess of the
“minimum income threshold”, a sum set by reference to COSLA guidance and linked to
rates set by the UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. Income relating to the
applicant’s disability, such as Disability Living Allowance, is left out of account. Andrew’s
income is above the threshold, hence he is asked to pay a contribution to the costs of services
provided. These rates are used to assess the initial contribution level. The respondent may
then apply certain deductions to reduce the contribution, such as deductions for disability
related expenditure (“DRE”). The respondent’s decision to allow only certain deductions is,
together with the validity of the charging policy, at the heart of this case.
[3] Para 12.2 of the charging policy sets out certain principles which will be applied in
the calculation of the relevant charges. These include that:
“Consideration will be given to representations to take into account other specific
costs of living e.g. in relation to disability related expenditure.”
To continue reading
Request your trial