Thousands of disabled people currently denied social care could potentially get access to services following a supreme court ruling described by campaigners as potentially the most important community care ruling for 15 years.
Charities said the ruling would put an end to so-called “computer says no” assessments and remove the “postcode lottery” whereby some councils restrict eligibility for social care on grounds of cost and some do not.
They added that the judgment meant every local authority in England and Wales might have to reconsider how it assessed the needs of disabled people.
The justices rejected the challenge to the rationality of the local authority’s decision in relation to KM, who was born without eyes. However, Simon Foster, head of legal services at Sense, a national charity for deaf-blind people, said: “We are delighted that the court has made it very clear that a local authority must assess disabled people in the first instance based on their needs, rather than what is available in the local authority’s budget.
“We believe in the principle that a person’s needs ought to be assessed in full, without regard to financial considerations.”
Sense said it had come across cases where local authorities would refuse to even assess some applications on the grounds that they would not be able to afford a care package. Thursday’s ruling means councils will be required to carry out the full assessment, even if they later decide they cannot fund the package, making it easier for applicants to challenge the decision.
Council officials played down the impact of the judgment, saying the majority of authorities followed the correct procedure on social care assessments and the ruling was unlikely, as claimed, to lead to thousands more people becoming eligible for care.
Sarah Pickup, the president of the Association of Directors of Adults Social Services, said there would be no major financial impact on councils as a result of the ruling: “It is not going to open the floodgates.”
The ruling followed a legal challenge by lawyers representing 26-year-old KM, who was born without eyes and has a range of serious mental and physical conditions. KM, who was not named to protect his identity, uses braille and is a proficient musician. But lawyers argued he needed significant support with self care and feeding, and needed a guide outside his home.
They told the supreme court that Cambridgeshire county council had made an “irrational” decision when funding KM’s care. They said the council’s offer of about £85,000 a year was “manifestly insufficient” to meet the man’s “assessed eligible needs” – and told seven justices that an independent social worker had put the cost of an annual support package at £157,000.
On Thursday the judges unanimously rejected the challenge to the rationality of the local authority’s decision but made clear in the ruling that local authority resources were not to be taken into account at the point where the needs of a disabled person were being assessed.
Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, which represented four charities in the case – Sense, the National Autistic Society, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association – called it a landmark judgment.
The Irwin Mitchell partner Yogi Amin said: “This is potentially the biggest community care ruling in 15 years.
“Although KM’s appeal has not been successful, we are pleased that the supreme court has now clarified the law with regard to local authorities taking their resources into account when assessing a disabled person’s needs.
“The previous judgment providing direction on this issue was Barry which is 15 years old, so it is great to now have further clarity and potentially see thousands of people get access to social care across the country.”
Amin said the ruling clarified a 1997 House of Lords ruling which suggested local authority resources may be taken into account when determining the care needs of individuals. The charities argued that this was a misinterpretation of the law and that the full care needs of individuals should be assessed regardless of the local authority’s financial position.
The court also made it clear that when social care support was provided by direct payments to the individual it was “crucial” that local authorities provided a reasonable degree of detail so that a judgment could be made whether the indicative sum was too high, too low or about right.
Mark Lever, chief executive of the National Autistic Society, said: “The fact that court recognised the assessment for social care should not be based on a ‘computer says so’ system is an important step forward. This sends a clear message to all local authorities that they have a duty of care to be transparent about how they assess and allocate funds to disabled people whether they live in Liverpool or Luton.
“The case highlights the complexity of the current social care system and the need for the government to stop delaying in their reforms and put an end to the care crisis.”
Same Difference 