Government scraps plans for cap on care costs

May 17th, 2019 by Hannah Slarks

In response to a Parliamentary question from Caroline Lucas, the Government has confirmed that it has abandoned plans to introduce a cap on the costs of care. The costs cap was the most radical of the reforms introduced with the Care Act 2014. After several years in the long grass, the plan is now in the bin. Instead, we are promised that the social care Green Paper will cover “an element of risk pooling in the system, which will help to protect people from the highest costs”.

Hannah Slarks


New deprivation of liberty legislation – 11 things you need to know

May 17th, 2019 by Hannah Slarks

Yesterday (16 May 2019) royal assent was given to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019. This amends the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (“MCA”). The amendments introduce the new Liberty Protection Safeguards. The Act is designed to reduce the strain on the deprivation of liberty safeguards system since Cheshire West.

This blog does not cover the Court of Protection in detail. However, the new regime will loom large for all practitioners in community care.  Always eager to help, the team at 11KBW offers you 11 key things that you need to know about it: Read more »


Sharing information about vulnerable people

May 13th, 2019 by Hannah Slarks

M, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Anor [2019] EWHC 975

In the community care context, services providers and public authorities constantly handle information concerning their vulnerable clients. This case – concerning a police force’s sharing of information – is a cautionary tale. Read more »


Imminent Green Paper on social care is promised

May 8th, 2019 by Hannah Slarks

A House of Commons library briefing paper says that a Green Paper on social care in England is “expected”.

In July 2015, the Government decided to postpone the introduction of a cap on lifetime social care charges. Read more »


Duty to accommodate under s.18? First appellate case on the Care Act is a damp squib

May 8th, 2017 by Hannah Slarks

R (SG) v LB Haringey [2017] EWCA Civ 322

When is a test case not a test case?  When the legal argument you want to have does not arise on the facts.

This was the situation in SG.  The parties geared themselves up for the Court of Appeal to clarify the application of the Care Act 2014.  Mind was joined as an intervenor, in order to assist in this important debate.  However, the Court of Appeal quickly reached the view that the debate the parties wanted to have did not arise from the facts of the case. Read more »


Liar liar? Fair procedure, credibility and assessments

November 11th, 2016 by Hannah Slarks


We are all left reeling from the news across the pond.  It may feel as if no one cares anymore about who is telling the truth or what is fair.  But, when all about you are losing their heads, turn to a recent decision from the Administrative Court for reassurance.  In R (S and J) v Haringey LBC [2016] EWHC 2692 (Admin), the High Court handed down useful guidance on the procedure that authorities should follow before concluding that a person lacks credibility. Read more »


When is enough, enough? Runaways and Section 20

September 28th, 2016 by Hannah Slarks

After a summer break, the 11KBW Community Care blog is back for the new term.  In fact, we’ve already forgotten what being on holiday felt like.  We expect you know the feeling.  Sigh.

The blog’s comeback case concerns a vulnerable young man who repeatedly refused to be placed: R (on the application of AI) v Haringey Borough Council (2016) QBD (Admin). The question before the Court was whether LB Haringey had done all that was reasonably practicable to try to place him. Read more »


“Most appropriate placements” for looked after children: The High Court waters down the duty

January 29th, 2016 by Hannah Slarks

Sometimes judges will do things that nobody asked them to do.  So it was in R (Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers) v Bristol CC, Leeds CC, Suffolk CC [2015] EWHC 3615 (Admin).  Without any encouragement from the parties before him, William Davis J has seriously watered down the duty on councils to find the “most appropriate placement” for looked after children.

The Claimant’s case

The Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers (NAFP) challenged the way in which councils select foster carers for children.  Many councils consider in-house foster parents first.  Only if they cannot find a suitable in-house foster parent do they consider independent foster parents.  NAFP argued that that this approach unlawful.  Section 22C(5) Children’s Act 1989 requires that a local authority must place the child in the placement which is “in their opinion, the most appropriate placement available”.   NAFP argued that this requires councils to design their processes to identify the most appropriate placement available among all the possible options.  Therefore, councils could not lawfully give priority to in-house options.

Read more »


11KBW Community Care Blog launches

January 28th, 2016 by Hannah Slarks

11KBW’s ever popular community care briefing is reborn as a blog. We will bring you all the new developments in community care law, with analysis from our specialist team, but now in regular online updates.

Subscribe to receive blog posts straight into your inbox – enter your email address in the subscription box.