Gurdev Singh v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

This is a claim for judicial review against the Defendant’s ongoing failure to (1) properly assess the Claimant’s needs so as to find he has an eligible need for overnight care and (2) properly assess his priority for an allocation of accommodation, so as to award him medical priority for a three-bedroom property.

There are five grounds of review:

Permission was granted on all grounds on 30 September 2025 by Richard Wright KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

I acknowledge the hard work, care and skill which has been deployed by both parties' counsel over the course of the hearing and in written submissions in the preparation and presentation of their respective cases. I do not intend any disrespect to either of the parties if I do not address every single point which has been made to me, but I have taken them all into account and what follows is my assessment of the issues important to the disposal of this claim.

The Claimant was born on 9 November 1955 and is now aged 70. He suffers from memory and cognitive difficulties arising from Korsakoff’s dementia, Type 2 diabetes, alcohol dependency syndrome, and reduced mobility. He is incontinent, suffers from hallucinations, and suffered a heart attack in August 2024.

He lives in a two-bedroom ground floor flat adapted with a wet room and level access. He lives with his son, Har Singh, who works full time. His wife lives separately with their other son, Hari Singh.

It is not disputed that the Claimant has eligible needs under the Care Act 2014. He has been assessed as requiring a care package of three care calls a day plus 4.75 hours a week for community access. He receives direct payments, and his son Hari is employed to provide that support. His wife Jinny provides informal support, for which she receives a carer’s allowance. She attends the property every day between 7am and 4pm and manages his food, medication, personal hygiene and emotional needs. It has been suggested by the Defendant that assistive technology be installed to gather evidence as to the Claimant’s nighttime movements but that offer has not been accepted by the family.

There have been various assessments over recent years, all of which have concluded that there is no need for overnight care. The claim was initially expressed as being against a decision dated 17 June 2025, but the most recent community care assessment (“Review of Care and Support Plan”) contained in the documents bundle is dated 2 May 2025. Since the claim was issued on 25 July 2025 a further community care assessment dated 11 August 2025 has been completed and that is the relevant target for review. There have also been a number of Occupational Therapy Housing Needs Assessment documents, the most recent of which is dated 15 July 2025.

The Occupational Therapy Housing Needs Assessment was intended to provide advice regarding the Claimant’s eligibility for medical priority to move on health or disability grounds, and to provide housing recommendations including if he has met the threshold for an extra bedroom for care and support at night. Under the heading “Client(s) health concern(s) and/or disability and functional impact” it states as follows:

“His dementia is progressive and results in decline in cognition and memory disorders. He is often disorientated in time, place, and person. He can be paranoid and anxious around new people. He lacks motivation and needs prompting, supervision, or assistance of 1 for activities of daily living to prevent self-neglect for example self-care, eating and drinking and sleeping.

Case notes show that at the time of both OT visits completed (30/01/2024 and 05/02/2024), patient did not demonstrate any concerning behaviours (aggressive or impulsive) and was settled throughout. That assessing OT did observe patient talking to himself and his eyes were flickering during this time, although he was settled. Patient did not engage in any conversation or provide any input into that assessment. Although patient is settled and does not attempt to get up without assistance, he does not have the cognitive capacity/ability to identify dangers or call for help in case of an emergency.

He is not impulsive, is not at high risk of falls and does not wander or try and leave the property unsupervised.”

Under “Client’s Available Support (formal/informal) the following appears:

“His son Har, who is living with him, has been providing overnight support when Mr Singh needs it. During a past assessment Mr Har described [t]he level of night support as ‘periodically’ but it is also recorded that Mr Singh is reported to have a poor sleep pattern sleeping between 2 and 4 hours and he often wakes up confused. At these times he needs to be reassured, re-directed, and settled back down to sleep. Har stated that this is challenging because he works full time and does not get the sleep he needs. His night needs were identified as: assistance with toileting if required, and to settle him down if he is wakes up. He can sometime wake in the night thinking it is the day. He sleeps on a standard bed, with standard mattress and does not need to be turned, he has no pressure care issues, no nursing needs, no issues with his breathing which need monitoring. His night needs are more due to his cognitive decline than physical impairments or health needs. It is not clear why he needs to use the toilet at night or to open his bowels at night and if this could be improved with a toilet regime.

Family may want to request GP or incontinence team to assess this issue.”

The document contains a section entitled “OT identified housing barriers” which stated as follows:

“Technology OT offered trial of “just checking “technology but family declined.

A GP or incontinence advisor may be able to look at a toilet regime to address his need to use the toilet at night. The problem may be more associated with cognitive decline that physically needing to use the toilet.

Care and support plan records that a discussion was had around the option of future placement for Mr Singh, but family have declined to explore this further. They are motivated to continue to care for him at home.”

The recommendations section rejected the Claimant’s application for Priority Medical Status for housing, for although the Claimant had a severe long-term limiting illness or health condition, and had a permanent and substantial disability, it could not be said that his health or quality of life was severely affected by their present accommodation. It was recorded under that criterion “No, he is safe at home, can access facilities and is not housebound.” The Claimant’s application for Emergency Medical Status was also rejected on the basis that the threshold for Medical Priority had not been met.

The document concluded with a section entitled “Clinical Justification – Reasons for NOT advising medical priority”, which stated as follows:

“ - Mr Singh is not housebound.

- Mr Singh has access to a toilet.

- Mr Singh has access to an adapted shower.

- Mr Singh has a bedroom.

- He is safe in the property.

The re-housing application has been made by his son and wife because she wants to move back to live with him after a very long separation. Mrs Kaur does not feel that she could share a bedroom with her husband due to his cognitive decline.

Extra bedroom

Social worker Asma Begum and this OT assessor conclude that in the short-term Mrs Kaur could consider moving back into the property with her husband and have her own bed in his bedroom, there is space. However, Mr Singh’s needs are progressive, and has marked cognitive decline so this assessor considers him to be eligible for his own bedroom. His needs are only going to increase. Mrs Kaur wants to live with her husband to reduce her travel and to provide day and night care to support her son who currently lives with him but works.

If Mrs Kaur moves back in with her husband after their very long separation, then the overcrowding priority is likely to apply, the threshold for medical priority has not been met- the property is accessible…” (emphasis original)

The Review of Care and Support Plan dated 11 August 2025 contains a section entitled “Pen Picture” which stated as follows:

“Mr Singh has memory and cognitive problems resulting from Korsakoff's dementia. He has reduced mobility and lacks motivation to complete daily living tasks. He is unable to manage personal hygiene, toilet needs, cooking, housework, and community access and would be at risk of neglect if left without care and support. A recommendation was made for the use of assistive technology to monitor his movements at night, which could facilitate more effective intervention. However, this was declined by the family, who reported that they believe it would not support him effectively in a time of need.”

Under “Medical History” the following was recorded:

“Mr Singh is reported to be experiencing hallucinations, he sees, talks, and swears at people who are not there - and believes the people are watching him. Each day is different; sometimes he is happy with the people and sometimes he is upset with them. He had a heart attack in August 2024, and family fear he could have another one due to getting upset and shouting at the invisible people that he sees. His mood gets affected when he is upset and angry and refuses to eat. GP is aware of the situation.

… Son reported that Mr Singh is showing worsening signs of dementia, leading to disorientation, hallucinations, and difficulties with selfcare, often requiring reassurance from his wife, Jinny. Jinny reported that Mr Singh suffered a heart attack at home at 10 PM while alone, as his son was out, and he was unable to use his pendant alarm for help. With a history of heart issues, including surgery and stents, he has been warned by his doctor about the high risk of further heart attacks…

Mrs Kaur reported that they are still in the process of appealing the housing decision on the application for a 3-bedroom house so Mr Kaur can move in with Mr Singh and provide 24-hour care, as the family reported that Mr Singh requires support throughout the night and early mornings. Mrs Kaur further reported that “I am happy to provide the 24 hours of care and supervision at no extra cost to the local authority”.”

Under the heading “Request for 24-hour support” it states:

“There are no substantial risks identified through this assessment and from GP feedback, OT input or family feedback that require continuous supervision at night or provision of 24 hours care or support at night to manage the risks. No evidence of risks of falls or hospital admission has been recorded or reported to Adult Social Care. Needs such as toileting and assurance when he is confused can be met by family who are providing support and provisional pads for any accidents at night and further intervention by GP and CMHT to address confusion and hallucination. The risk of a heart attack is a health concern that is currently being managed and monitored by Mr Singh’s GP. I have also confirmed that there are no District Nurses (DN) involved at this time. In addition to this, Mr Singh's poor sleeping pattern can also be addressed by additional activity during the day to keep him busy during the day. The family has been advised to consider this to allow additional support, such as day care attendance.”

The document concludes with a section entitled “Summary and Analysis” which states as follows:

“Mr Gurdev Singh requires assistance from one person for most aspects of daily living tasks, including washing, dressing, and cooking. He is currently incontinent of urine and bowels—his family reported that he often soils himself overnight. The family consistently asks him every hour if he needs to use the commode. They have tried continence pads; however, he has refused them and attempts to remove them. Mrs Kaur has been in contact with the GP to discuss his incontinence issues. Mr Singh’s clothes and sheets need regular changing and washing. When he is alone, he begins hallucinating and becomes anxious, agitated, and upset.”

It goes on to state the following under the “Recommendations” heading:

“Mr Singh has cognitive impairments and requires supervision, as he is unable to manage his own risks. Due to his cognitive condition, he needs assistance from one person for all personal care. Mr Gurdev Singh meets the eligibility criteria, as he is unable to achieve two or more of the eligible outcomes. Without care and support, his physical, mental, and emotional well-being will be compromised, negatively affecting his dignity and treatment…

[T]he following support recommendations are being made:

•

Refer Mr Singh to his GP or memory clinic for further intervention to address confusion, dementia management, hallucinations, and poor sleep patterns reported by the family.

•

Continue supporting the re-housing application for medical reasons.

•

The family should consider additional daytime support, such as day care or activities, to help improve his sleep at night by keeping him engaged during the day.

•

Trial at a day-care to observe his condition and to identify any distress or problems.

•

Reconsider the use of assistive technology to monitor his movements at night, which could support more effective intervention.

The recent assessment reflects changes in Mr Singh’s health condition, including his recent heart attack, worsening overnight hallucinations, and incontinence during the early hours. The family has expressed concerns about his risk of a heart attack; however, the GP confirmed that Mr Singh had a heart attack in August 2024 and underwent a stent procedure on a coronary artery. He is on medication to prevent further cardiovascular issues, and these risks are being managed. The GP also advised that Mr Singh’s longstanding confusion and hallucinations are well-managed, and no current risks have been identified…

The family has expressed concerns regarding the potential risks associated with overnight care, specifically from 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. However, based on the current assessment, incorporating input from the the [sic] GP, the Occupational Therapy team and family feedback, there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Singh requires continuous supervision or 24-hour support during nighttime hours. There are no reported incidents of falls or hospital admissions, and recent observations confirm that Mr Singh is able to access and use the toilet independently.

Mr Singh's disrupted sleep pattern may be mitigated through increased engagement in daytime activities, which has been suggested to the family as a way to improve sleep and support overall well-being. Enhancing daytime engagement may also support the introduction of daytime care services. At present, the existing care arrangements remain effective, with the family and the

primary caregiver expressing willingness to continue providing support. Furthermore, Mr Singh’s attendance at day care would offer Mrs Kaur personal time and respite.

Should the family find it unsustainable to maintain the current level of support under the Direct Payment arrangement, the option of transitioning Mr Singh into a less restrictive setting has been explored. This includes the consideration of extra care accommodation, where staff are available 24 hours a day to provide assistance as needed. Such a setting would also afford the family flexibility to visit at their convenience offers her the opportunity for respite while supporting Mr Singh’s well-being. It is important to note that Mrs Kaur has lived separately from Mr Singh for many years.”

The Claimant also relies on a letter dated 6 January 2023 from Nazmul Hussain, Longer Term Support Officer for the Defendant, which expressed the view that the Claimant’s care needs had increased over the previous two years which has resulted in his dementia declining further and him by then needing 24 hour care and supervision, and that a 3 bedroom property was now needed.

Where it appears to a local authority that an adult may have needs for care and support, a care “needs assessment” must be carried out by the local authority under s9 Care Act 2014. Having carried out that assessment, the local authority must go on to consider whether the assessed person has any eligible needs under section 13 and The Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015. If the person assessed has eligible needs, the local authority is under a duty to provide support under section 18. If the assessed needs are not eligible needs, then the local authority has power to meet those needs under section 19(1). Where a local authority is required to meet needs under s18 or decides to do so under s19(1) it must prepare a care and support plan or a support plan for the adult concerned under s24(1).

Section 149 Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on a public authority to, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to

As a matter of principle, subject to proving an error of law, the local authority is the finder of fact in these cases. Further, it is a question for the local authority to assess what a particular adult’s needs may be, and the question of the weight to be placed on the factors considered to be relevant is for the local authority. Reasons need not be detailed as long as they make clear what the critical issues were and how they were resolved. Community care assessments must not be subjected to overzealous textual analysis, given that the context is of an assessment prepared by a social worker for his or her employer.

A more structured way of applying the Wednesbury test is to ask: does the conclusion follow from the evidence or there an unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning which fails to justify the conclusion: R (Wells) v Parole Board [2019] EWHC 2710 (Admin) at [33]. Process rationality includes the requirement that the decision maker must have regard to all mandatorily relevant considerations and no irrelevant ones but is not limited to that. In addition, the process of reasoning should contain no logical error or critical gap. This is the type of irrationality present where a decision that does not add up, in which there is an error of reasoning which robs the decision of logic: R (KP) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 370 (Admin) at [56].

There is no dispute as to the underlying medical disorders suffered by the Claimant. The Defendant accepts that the Claimant suffers from dementia which prevents him from managing personal care, including personal hygiene, toilet needs, cooking, housework and community access. He is incontinent both of urine and of bowels; he often soils himself overnight. When he is alone he begins hallucinating and becomes anxious, agitated, and upset. The hallucinations are longstanding and are being well managed by the General Practitioner.

The Claimant’s dementia is accepted as worsening: the Review of Care and Assessment Plan states “[t]he recent assessment reflects changes in Mr Singh’s health condition, including his recent heart attack, worsening overnight hallucinations, and incontinence during the early hours.”

Ms. Kaur reported that the Claimant’s care needs include waking up, wandering, hallucinations, and shouting. Har, who lives with the Claimant, reports that the Claimant has a poor sleep pattern, sleeping between 2 and 4 hours a night. The Claimant often wakes up confused, and needs to be reassured, re-directed, and settled back down to sleep. The Claimant’s night needs were identified by Har as settling him down if he wakes up, and assistance with toileting if required. The Claimant can sometimes wake in the night thinking it is the day. His night needs were accepted as more being due to his cognitive decline than physical impairments or health needs.

The Defendant’s explanation for its finding that the Claimant did not require continuous supervision or 24-hour support during nighttime hours is as follows:

The Defendant submits that it has considered overnight care, there is no suggestion that material has been ignored or erroneously taken into account, nor that the procedure followed was unfair. The only challenge is to the reasonableness of the decision, and it was within the range of permissible decisions, bearing in mind that the Claimant only relies on the subjective view of the Claimant’s family that he requires overnight care, and that the family consistently indicates that the solution is the provision of an additional room, that being the central focus of the discussion, directly impacting the feasibility and acceptance of proposed care interventions.

In my judgment the conclusion does not follow from the evidence, and there is an unexplained leap in reasoning which fails to justify the conclusion. The Defendant has accepted that the Claimant, with progressive dementia, wakes up at night confused, and may become distressed. At that point he needs to be reassured, re-directed, and settled back to sleep. If he wishes to go to the toilet, which may not be due to a physical need, he needs assistance. Although there is no evidence of the average frequency of such waking, the evidence is that the Claimant only sleeps for 2 – 4 hours per night. It is not possible to understand how, in those circumstances, the Defendant could conclude that there is no need for overnight care (whether sleeping care or awake care). None of the reasons proffered can explain the conclusion:

i)

Whether there are falls or hospital admissions is not conclusive of whether nighttime care is required.

ii)

The fact that the Claimant could access and use the toilet during the daytime is not evidence that he is able to at night, when potentially confused.

iii)

The Defendant has already found that the Claimant’s sleep disturbance was probably due to cognitive deterioration, so increased engagement in daytime activities is unlikely to be a reliable solution for the sleep disturbance.

iv)

That the existing care arrangements remain effective is not evidence that overnight care is not required. Har is currently providing unpaid care at night but has stated that it prejudices his ability to work in the daytime, so it is unclear that he can continue in this role for much longer. Even if he could, that would not be evidence that there was no need for overnight care.

v)

Giving an option for transfer to extra care accommodation with 24-hour staffing is not evidence that overnight care is not needed.

This ground of review therefore succeeds, and the needs assessment is quashed, and must be reconsidered.

The question arises whether a mandatory order should be granted requiring the provision of overnight care. In the absence of evidence of the frequency and duration of the care provided on a nightly basis, I do not consider that the only reasonable outcome is the provision of overnight care. I therefore do not grant a mandatory order.

The Claimant submits that the refusal to house the Claimant with his primary carer, Ms. Kaur, is a breach of the public sector equality duty under s149 Equality Act 2010 and a failure to comply with the duty to perform reasonable adjustments under s20 Equality Act 2010.

Section 149 requires “due regard” to be given to

The Claimant submits that there is no evidence of the structured and explicit consideration of both the Claimant’s disabilities and the gendered disadvantages arising from Ms. Kaur’s unpaid caring role. Disability and career-related disadvantages were treated as background context, not as factors requiring active consideration or adjustment.

The duty must be exercised “in substance, with rigour and with an open mind”: R (Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWHC 3158 (Admin) [2009] PTSR 1506 at [92]. The “due regard” duty is a duty to have due regard to the need to achieve the specified goals; it is not a duty to achieve a result. Due regard means the regard that is appropriate in all the circumstances: R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 141 [2009] PTSR 809 at [31]. The weight to be placed on the duty is for the decision maker: the court simply has to be satisfied that “there has been a rigorous consideration of the duty”: Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30 [2016] AC 811 at [75].

I do not accept that the fact that there is no express reference to the requirements in s149 means without more that there has been noncompliance with that section. In Hotak v Southwark LBC (supra) at [79] Lord Neuberger found that, in many cases, a conscientious reviewing officer who was investigating and reporting on a potentially vulnerable applicant, and who was unaware that the public sector equality duty was engaged, could, despite his ignorance, very often comply with that duty. It is wrong to assume a general principle requiring a reviewing officer to spell out in express terms whether the PSED duty I play and if so with what precise effect: Haque v Hackney LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 4 at [47]. The real issue is whether the requirements of s149 have been complied with as a matter of substance.

The needs assessment under s9(1) involves the assessment of

In my judgment the needs assessment under s9 Care Act 2014 necessarily included consideration of the Claimant’s disabilities, and of the other requirements of s149. The fact that I have found an error of law in one aspect of the needs assessment does not derogate from that finding.

The Occupational Therapy Housing Needs Assessment dated 15 July 2025 was made in response to Ms. Kaur stating that she would like to live with the Claimant again so that she could provide both day and night support and avoid the onerous daily journeys she was undertaking. I find that that assessment engaged with the question of Ms. Kaur’s caring role and the requirements of s149, including the need to eliminate discrimination.

The Claimant submits that s20 requires the Defendant to take reasonable steps to avoid placing the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled residents, by providing suitable accommodation enabling co-residence and live-in care. That is said to mitigate the disadvantage caused by the Claimant’s disability and dependency on his carer. No direct discrimination is alleged, so the allegation must turn on indirect discrimination within s19.

The Claimant does not identify a Provision, Criterion or Practice (“PCP”) within s19(1) which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of the Claimant (being disabled).

As the Defendant points out, if the PCP is the Defendant’s housing allocation scheme under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, it is entirely unclear how that scheme discriminates against the disabled, for it does not put the disabled at a particular disadvantage as compared to the able-bodied (see s19(2)(b)).

Further, there is a specific duty within the Housing Act 1996 requiring reasonable preference to be given to people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including any grounds relating to a disability): s166A. Further, s166A(14) prevents a local housing authority from allocating housing accommodation except in accordance with their allocation scheme. Thus, no reasonable adjustment could require a 3-bedroom house when not provided for by the allocation scheme.

The Claimant submits that the Occupational Therapy Housing Needs Assessment dated 15 July 2025 was irrational. The Statement of Facts and Grounds submits that the evidence from social workers, occupational therapists, GPs and carers overwhelmingly supports the need for a 3-bedroom property for the provision of live-in care.

There is no persuasive case that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need for a 3-bedroom property. That argument depends on establishing two propositions: first, that it is irrational not to provide 24-hour care on the evidence, and second, that the only reasonable way of providing 24-hour care is by the provision of a 3-bedroom property. I have made findings on 24-hour care within ground 1, but I do not go so far as to find that the only reasonable outcome is a finding that 24-hour care is required. Further, there would be a number of options as to how 24-hour care could be delivered, with the provision of a 3-bedroom house being only one of them. Local authorities have a wide discretion in the allocation of accommodation in accordance with their allocation scheme. In R (Ahmad) v Newham LBC [2009] ULHL 14 [2009] PTSR 632 Lord Neuberger said the following at [46]:

“[A]s a general proposition, it is undesirable for the courts to get involved in questions of how priorities are accorded in housing allocation policies. Of course, there will be cases where the court has a duty to interfere, for instance if a policy does not comply with statutory requirements, or if it is plainly irrational. However, it seems unlikely that the legislature can have intended that judges should embark on the exercise of telling authorities how to decide on priorities as between applicants in need of rehousing, save in relatively rare and extreme circumstances. Housing allocation policy is a difficult exercise which requires not only social and political sensitivity and judgment, but also local expertise and knowledge.”

The Defendant’s housing allocations scheme provided for priority on health or disability grounds if two requirements were met: if someone in the household has (i) a severe long-term limiting illness, or a permanent and substantial disability and (ii) their health or quality of life is severely affected by the home they live in. A priority medical award not based on the basis of the medical condition or disability alone but upon the effect the housing circumstances are having on a long term and serious medical condition or disability.

The Defendant stated the following in relation to the second question concerning priority medical status:

“No, he is safe at home, can access facilities and is not housebound. He has commissioned care and the support of his son who lives with him and his wife who visits from her home in another borough.”

The Defendant concluded that the second requirement was not met, and I find that it was entitled to reach that finding.

There is a further category under the policy of an emergency medical award where inter alia there is a risk to life or there are very exceptional circumstances. The Defendant found that the threshold was not met, and it was clearly entitled to reach that finding.

The Skeleton Argument asserts that it was irrational in that it concluded that the Claimant was safe despite his progressive dementia, poor mobility, and incontinence; it failed to have regard to relevant considerations, namely medical evidence, carer health, and Equality Act considerations; and took into account irrelevant considerations, namely physical accessibility alone.

None of these arguments are persuasive. As long as the current support from the Claimant’s family continues, including from Har at night, the Claimant is safe. Further, even if there was a risk to health, that would not amount to evidence that the Claimant’s health or quality of life was currently severely affected by the home he lives in. The decision took into account all relevant considerations, and it cannot be said that physical accessibility was an irrelevant consideration. If it is being said that the decision took into account physical accessibility alone, that is not a fair reading of the decision, which took account of various other factors.

The Defendant also submits that the right to a review within its allocation policy provides a suitable alternative remedy. Whilst that is an arguable point, I express no concluded view on it, given my findings on the substance of the ground.

The Claimant submits that the combined effect of the Defendant’s conduct is to prevent family life from being lived in dignity and security. The Claimant is isolated and unsupervised at night, and Ms. Kaur lives apart though willing to provide unpaid full-time care. It is asserted that the interference with family life is disproportionate and unjustified when weighed against the modest accommodation and care adjustments sought.

Article 8 can impose a positive duty on a state to provide welfare support: McDonald v Kensington LBC [2011] UKSC 33 [2011] 4 All ER 881 at [15]. There is a wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by states in striking the fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, and this margin of appreciation is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities in the context of the allocation of limited state resources: McDonald at [16]. The Court of Appeal in Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406 [2004] QB 1124, having found that it was not possible to deduce from the Strasbourg jurisprudence any specific criteria for the imposition of a positive duty to provide welfare support, stated:

“[w]e find it hard to conceive… of a situation in which the predicament of an individual will be such that art 8 requires him to be provided with welfare support, where his predicament is not sufficiently severe to engage art 3…”

This dictum was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in McDonald at [18].

The evidence in this case falls far short of demonstrating a breach of Article 3. Even if there were an interference with the Claimant’s Article 8 rights, which I doubt, such interference would clearly be justified. There is no breach of Article 8.

This ground asserts procedural unfairness and is based on the failure to disclose what are described as key assessments – the September 2024 Care Act Assessment, and the CHC Checklist; failure to respond to the Claimant’s pre-action protocol correspondence; and advising Ms. Kaur not to share her Carer’s Assessment externally, frustrating her ability to obtain advice.

There is also an allegation that it has downgraded risk scores and ignored its own professionals’ recommendations without explanation, which overlaps with ground 1.

The CHC checklist was disclosed at the hearing. The decision not to grant the Claimant additional priority for housing dated 20 September 2024 has also been disclosed. There was no unfairness in the Defendant’s approach to pre-action protocol correspondence. The Defendant has not ignored recommendations from its own professionals. The letter from its Longer Term Support Officer dated 6 January 2023 that stated that overnight care and a 3-bedroom property was required was not specifically mentioned in the latest assessments but that does not mean that it was ignored. Ms. Kaur has been closely involved in corresponding with the Defendant over the Claimant’s assessments, and any advice given not to share her Carer’s assessment externally does not appear to have materially inhibited her ability to access legal assistance. No specifical assurance has been identified or proved to have been made to the Claimant of any particular level of future care or of housing.

In conclusion, none of the criticisms made are capable of amounting to procedural unfairness which could be capable of impugning the legality of the Defendant’s decisions regarding overnight care or a third bedroom.

For the reasons stated above, this claim succeeds on ground 1, and the needs assessment dated 8 August 2025 is quashed. The Defendant must reconsider the needs assessment according to law. Grounds 2 – 5 are dismissed.