COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
HH JUDGE BIDDER QC
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF KM (BY HIS MOTHER AND LITIGATION FRIEND JM)
|- and -
|CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Mr Jonathan Auburn and Mr Benjamin Tankel (instructed by Cambridgeshire County Council) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 17th and 18th May 2011
Crown Copyright ©
President of the Queen's Bench Division
This is the judgment of the Court
The Resource Allocation System
"Having received the assessment by the Independent Assessor, Ian Crompton, which the County Council accepts, he was asked to prepare a care plan/support package, which he provided as an addendum to his report, with a cost of £157,000, which the County Council does not accept, and has set out the reasons for this position in the letter dated 26/02/2010. However, in the spirit of trying to resolve the current situation, the LDP Team undertook to relook at the Personal Budget allocation in light of this additional piece of work. In reviewing Ian Crompton's care plan, the LDP Team recognised the provision of 1:1 support from a specialist provider for 14 hours a day. In using the Upper Banding Calculator to generate a higher allocation to the overall Personal Budget, the LDP Team increased the amount of care from a specialist provider from 2 hours a day to 14 hours a day, so the additional allocation over and above £61,000 from the score of 55 points was determined as follows:
- 2:1 care for half an hour each day to allow handover between staff = £2,566
- 14 hours each day of specialist staff = £20,384
- The extra cost for 2:1 care with a specialist provider for half an hour each day i.e. during handover = £728
This produced a Personal Budget of £84,678."
The £20,384 in this calculation represents £4 per hour. This calculation is therefore a replication of the 19th May 2009 calculation which amounted to £67,206 with 14 hours a day of specialist care at £4 per hour substituted for the 2 hours in the earlier calculation. Thus the amount of £84,678 represents full time 1 to 1 specialist care costed at a rate embedded in the £61,000 plus £4 per hour. It would have been helpful, to say the least, if this explanation of the £84,678 had been forthcoming on or soon after 5th January 2010 when the amount was first advanced and by when it must have been calculated.
"In many cases, the provision of adequate reasons could be achieved with reasonable brevity. In the present case, I would consider it adequate to list the required services and assumed timings (as was actually done in the FACE assessment), together with the assumed hourly cost. That would not be unduly onerous. I appreciate that some recipients require more complicated arrangements which would call for more expansive reasoning but if that is what fairness requires, it must be done. In the course of these proceedings it seems to have been suggested on behalf of Mrs Savva that the provision of adequate reasons would extend to every decision having to include an explanation of the Council's RAS. That suggestion goes too far. Recipients and their advisers are entitled to know about the RAS but, as the Association's guidance recommends, this can be achieved by publishing the RAS on the Council's website in a user-friendly format."