Judge rejects challenge to lawfulness of Care Act assessment

In TDB, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 2014 (Admin) (01 August 2025), His Honour Judge Bird concluded that Haringey's decision that the claimant could access mainstream services with help was “plainly not irrational”, and that it is in the claimant’s “best interests” to receive mainstream, rather than specialist, care.

The claimant in the case was a young man (in his mid-twenties at the time of the hearing), with complex needs.

The judge noted: “He has a long-standing diagnosis of ADHD and of ASD and lives with a personality disorder. Whilst described as a 'charming and likeable person' he regularly exhibits challenging behaviours and can be violent. He has particular difficulties with some activities of daily living and with social interaction. This claim is about how he will be supported in the future.”

When the claimant reached the age of 18, he potentially came under the remit of the Haringey Learning Disability Partnership ("HLDP"), an integrated health and social care resource for adults with learning disabilities.

From time to time, the claimant has been able to access HLDP's services.

The judge observed: “The published eligibility criteria for HLDP support are derived from the formal description of the services it offers, namely that it 'supports people with a diagnosed learning disability who are aged 18 plus and ordinarily resident in Haringey'.”

The claimant was first assessed to determine if he was eligible to use HLDP services in 2019. An important aspect of the assessment was whether he had a learning disability. It was concluded:

“Whilst [the claimant] currently requires support to complete some of his activities of daily living, […] it has been demonstrated that with the appropriate support and information delivery [he] is able to learn skills and attain academic achievement that are above a level we would expect in someone with a learning disability. Additionally, difficulties with certain daily living skills are more likely related to [the claimant's] early experiences of abuse, anxiety, and fine motor skill difficulties, and not due to a learning disability. Therefore, he presents as someone with a learning difficulty presentation not disability. As such [the claimant] does not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of learning disability and it is not eligible to receive specialist support from the Haringey Learning Disability Partnership." (judge’s emphasis added).

The claimant underwent a further assessment in January 2020. It was carried out by a Forensic Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service for the Crown Court because the claimant had been charged with a minor criminal offence.

As a result of the assessment, the claimant was considered eligible for HLDP services.

In May 2024, at a meeting of the council’s Adult Social Care department and HLDP, it was decided that the claimant was (again) no longer eligible to receive HLDP services.

The meeting expressed the view that "all assessments [with one exception] have concluded that [the claimant] does not meet criteria for learning disability."

The May decision was communicated to the claimant and his parents by letter of 10 June 2024. In the letter, the claimant was described as having "borderline learning disability."

The recommendation was that the claimant no longer required "health input from a specialist learning disability team."

The claimant (through his parents) instructed solicitors. They wrote to the defendant council on 7 October 2024. They suggested that the claimant’s expulsion from HLDP was “premature” and that a thorough needs assessment was required.

The council was invited to undertake such an assessment together with an assessment of his EHCP and a review of his pathway plan. It was suggested that there would need to be "specialist input from a psychologist, from a learning disability specialist and an autism specialist."

In response, the council explained that a Care Act assessment was underway.

The Care Act assessment was completed in December 2024, having been commenced in April 2024.

At the time, the claimant was living in a specialist placement in Enfield. The placement was described as a "specialist forensic placement", which provided the claimant with high level support to manage his needs and activities of daily living.

The report recommended, among other things, that the support the claimant was provided with in Enfield was to continue and it was acknowledged that he would require “high level of support to manage his activities of daily living".

It was found that he would also need “high level specialist input” to manage his autism and sexual relationships.

Under the heading "next steps", the assessment referred to May 2024 meeting in the following way:

"Representatives from psychology, psychiatry, nursing and social work disciplines attended and was made aware of the decision of the HLDP that [the Claimant] does not have a learning disability and therefore is not able to receive support through HLDP”.

The assessment was conducted by a qualified social worker. A social worker from the adult's assessment team was also involved.

The claimant, acting by his litigation friend, challenged the lawfulness of the Care Act assessment on three grounds, outlined by the judge as follows:

• “First, that the assessment was conducted unlawfully in that it was prepared contrary to the requirements of both Reg.5 of the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 ("the 2014 Regulations") and Autism Statutory Guidance. In support of this ground, the claimant advances 3 arguments: first, it is said that the social workers who conducted the assessment did not have the requisite 'skills, knowledge and competence' and appropriate training to carry out the assessment. Secondly, it is said (because neither social worker had the relevant experience or expertise) the Defendant came under a duty to consult an expert in autism, and a psychologist or psychiatrist with a specialism in issues of capacity relating to sexual relations. Thirdly, there ought to have been a capacity assessment. The Claimant places particular reliance on his solicitor's letter of 7 October 2024.
• “Ground 2 is an irrationality challenge aimed at three findings. First, what is described as the 'conclusion' that the Claimant has a learning difficulty rather than a learning disability. Secondly, a reference in the assessment to a need for 'physical support – personal care support' and thirdly, what the Claimant understands to be the conclusion that he could access mainstream healthcare services without support.
• “Ground 3 is a policy challenge comprising 2 limbs. The broad argument is that the Defendant has an inflexible policy to exclude those with additional needs from HLDP based only the diagnostic criteria used to identify a learning disability. To pursue that argument the Claimant accepts I need to have found that it actually applied the policy when carrying out the assessment. The narrow argument is that the Defendant treated the issue of access to HLDP as determined and closed, whereas it should have considered, as part of the care plan, recommending a reconsideration of eligibility.”

Considering the first ground, HHJ Bird said: “I accept the Claimant's letter of 7 October 2024 requested that the assessment '…include specialist input from a psychologist, from a learning disability specialist and an autism specialist'. I do not accept that 'the Defendant was required either to adhere to the request or provide adequate reasons for declining to do so.'

“At its highest, the 7 October 2024 letter might be taken as an expression of the Claimant's 'wishes and preferences'. If that is right, the Defendant needed only to 'have regard' to them when carrying out the assessment.

“Insofar as the challenge amounts to a rationality challenge (as the Defendant characterised it) it cannot in my judgment be said that the decisions 'do not add up' so that they reveal in each case an error of reasoning which robs them of logic. Social workers are highly trained, have responsibilities to keep their training up to date as a condition of continued registration and, in the present case, have a good deal of experience.

“The context of the assessment was that the Claimant was well known to HDLP, to the Defendant and to other bodies outside the Defendant. Taking these factors into account, I am satisfied that the decision to proceed without further input was not irrational.”

The judge also concluded that the council was entitled to proceed without a capacity assessment, observing that the claimant is “entitled to the important presumption of capacity”.

On ground 2, the judge found that that the council did not reach its own decision on the extent of the claimant's learning issues, as argued. He observed: “The assessors relied on the professional views of others who were qualified to express the view.”

The other contentions within ground 2 were also rejected.

Finally, turning to ground 3, the judge said: “The first, and broader aspect of ground 3 must in my judgment fail for a number of reasons. First, the Defendant was not applying the policy when it conducted the assessment. It did not make the decision to exclude the Claimant from HLDP, that decision had already been taken in May 2024. Secondly, it is clear that the Defendant's approach took a flexible approach to the policy.”

Dismissing the claim, His Honour Judge Bird concluded: “No matter what the precise extent of the Claimant's learning issues is, he has been shown to function at a higher level than those with learning disabilities. That being the case it seems clear that it is in his best interests to receive mainstream, rather than specialist, care. He has shown himself able to achieve a great deal if he has the appropriate support. That is in my judgment a matter for celebration.”

Lottie Winson