CASCAIDr's legacy: barristers' views on Care Act issues, going public!


CASCAIDr's legacy: barristers' views on Care Act issues, going public!

Case Owner
We're a charity - specialist advisers in adults' rights to care and support - and we're crowdfunding to obtain barristers' views on undecided points of law that are infecting decisions about care.
on 15th February 2024
pledged of £15,000 stretch target from 92 pledges
Case Owner
We're a charity - specialist advisers in adults' rights to care and support - and we're crowdfunding to obtain barristers' views on undecided points of law that are infecting decisions about care.

Latest: Feb. 29, 2024

News about CASCAIDr's crack team of counsel!

CASCAIDr's Going Public legacy project has attracted an impressive cohort of barristers from several community care and health law teams, in specialist chambers.

Here they are - with an exciting p…

Read more

We are CASCAIDr, a specialist legal advice charity, which has been active since 2018.

We're open to all disabled and unwell people, over 16, for online advice about what to say to councils and ICBs when they refuse to comply with the law under the Care Act, or under the NHS continuing healthcare framework, or under s117 of the Mental Health Act.

We aim to provide the right words to remind public bodies of their duties - the words and principles that have emerged from 30 years or so of cases in the Administrative Court, where judicial review cases are decided.

Time was when anyone working in the public service would need to know the laws they're bound by and operating under, in order to call themselves professionals - but austerity cut public services to the bone, and qualifications and expertise somehow became unfashionable!

Those legal duties are all set out in Acts of Parliament - and public officers are bound to operate under public law principles - that's the part of our law that is the 'common' law of ensuring public bodies can't act arbitrarily or outside of their proper scope, under ANY Acts. 

But those duties are not sufficiently funded - there's a lot about that in the news right now - with councils going bust at an alarming rate, because of the cost of adult social care. 

These precious principles are as follows: decision-makers in the public sector (health and social services staff, therefore) MUST

- act rationally, addressing the evidence - not just ignoring it;

- act lawfully under the words in the relevant statute - and not just making them up as they go along;

- act fairly, in terms of rules about due process, either in the laws or guidance about their decision-making processes, or in line with fundamental public law principles established over the years. 

- act in accordance with a well-informed interpretation of the scope and meaning of people's Human Rights 

There are still some issues, however, in community care law, CHC law and s117 law that are not yet clear, or not clear enough, to stop increasingly stretched councils and ICBs pushing at establised boundaries with regard to what they can get away with, right now. 

We would be the first to accept that social care councils are all savagely short of staff, money and capacity, but that's politics - and meanwhile, the law is still the law.

CASCAIDr knows that there are three reasons for that lack of clarity regarding those ambiguous points of law:

  • Local authorities and ICBs (with access to decent legal teams) get that there's a risk in fighting cases about these points, because losing on one of these means losing for the whole sector - 150 or so other councils, for instance. So they will often settle those cases outside of court - meaning (ironically) that CASCAIDr has never had to GO to court to win a case, but has operated cost-effectively with just the power of legal principle at its disposal.
  • Legal aid law firms have not had a fee increase from the Legal Aid Agency for over a decade - and so cannot make giving preliminary legal advice in this sort of case profitable. Those firms have progressively withdrawn from the field (they can't be made to work at a loss) so that there is a well-documented advice desert in public and community care Legal Help funding - without which, charities like us cannot ever refer clients onwards. Law centres and CABx don't do much of this kind of work. Legal expertise costs money and charities can't operate in a market where increasing scarcity is putting up the cost of decent legal acumen.
  • There is too little - and at the same time,  too much - advice and information on the internet - too little from local authorities, too little from public legal education sources, too little from Law Centres and too much, in general circulation - for people to plough through, when in crisis. Those who know their rights may be too exhausted or too scared to use them; those who don't, can't possibly become expert, overnight.  Artificial intelligence isn't going to help, if what it's trawling through, isn't correct, in the first place!

We've polled the public on its view as to the 4 most pressing, unclear, undecided areas of law which are infecting social work decision-making, and causing untold aggravation for anyone forced to depend on the state for Care and Support, or for NHS Continuing Health Care or s117 Mental Health Act aftercare.

So, instead, we're spending our charitable assets on co-funding - along with whatever this appeal generates by way of donations - a suite of publicly available barristers' opinions about the most likely outcome of a court's decision if any of these issues were ever to get to Court. 

The poll suggests that these 4 topics described below are the ones with the widest significance for the public - and where clarification of the law is most clearly IN the public interest.

We know that this is likely to be a true picture of what is going on in the real world, because of the match, here, with some of the specific cases we've already worked on:

1.  Care Act processes, now widely known as 'conversations' - Are these streamlined approaches to assessments etc, even able to count under the Care Act? 

  • Many of our clients have no hope of knowing where they ARE in what's supposed to be a staged, linear journey through the Care Act process, before a decision on a care package is made. 
  • The language used is often loose and often just called a 'meeting' these days!
  • Funders are vague about the role of their panels or senior managers in the decison-making hierarchy - the law says it's their members' reasons that must be articulated and not irrational or flawed by mistakes of law.
  • The thinking and evaluation stages are all melded into one - which is supposed to be holistic and saving of repetition and aggravation for everyone, but it does make it hard to pin down which bit of the statute the person is working under, at the time
  • The staff often haven't done any legal framework training so don't know the difference between a review, a re-assessment or a revision...or the rules for each.
  • Nobody can be sure of advocacy 'rights' any longer - because advocacy has been inadequately commissioned for. 

2.  The nature of the duty to meet needs: Is the duty, in fact, not really an absolute, enforceable, individual duty, any longer, because of the state we're limping along in?

  • There was a time when the duty to meet needs was accepted to mean that if the funder couldn't find a business to provide the service, it would need to provide one directly, itself!
  • The duty was accepted to be enforceable, not something that only ever got done if a person had the grit and money to sue the funding body
  • It was understood that if there is only one way to meet the need then the cost is irrelevant - otherwise, the duty would have been unlawfully downgraded into a discretion - and the courts never allow that to happen. Or they didn't, at least.
  • But that was before Brexit, when a lot of social care workers went home; it was before Covid-19 when a lot of needy people just stayed home and locked down - or died in care homes - so day centres, care homes and homecare businesses just folded, never to open again. It was before the cost of living crisis, when providers and public bodies just pretended that pay rates for difficult grinding work could not go up! We think that judges would go back to 25 years of clear principle and find a way to tell local authorities to prioritise their duties.

3.  Direct Payments: When can a council lawfully say no to a request for a direct payment? Or lawfully pay less than it really costs, to enable the person to be their own commissioner?

  • We have worked for many clients who simply don't know that they can and must challenge the sufficiency of the personal budget if it isn't enough to attract anyone to the job, or any agency to the service. The law requires the funder to go by the local 'quality' market rate for the level of skill and profile of input required!
  • Family members often pick up the slack and then think that they should be able to be paid - and this is indeed true, but not without taking further steps to authorise the use of the money. Some councils, however, say nothing about that, and just reclaim the money at the end of the year. 
  • Many people are being told that they can only spend direct payments on personal assistants; some are being told that they can't spend the money on self-employed PAs; many are still being told that a direct payment can never be spent on travel or accommodation for respite or on activities, despite this being clearly unlawful since a case on that point. Others have conditions imposed on them which negate choice and control to a degree unimaginable to people who thought 'Personalisation' and 'independent living' really meant something.
  • We have clients who've been given direct payments even though there is no hope of their having sufficient mental capacity to understand that in so doing, they are supposedly becoming their own commissioners of care. Of course there's a system for giving the budget to a capacitated relative as an Authorised Person, but if councils don't bother with that, then that has queered the pitch for the question who is the employer, who is responsible for the use of the money, and who is liable if someone gets hurt in the course of the care service? 

4.  Mental Health Act aftercare under s117: Why isn't anyone using public law and judicial review to expose s117 hospital discharge teams to the allegation of utterly unconscionable delays, in and about their statutory duty?

  • This must be the most under-used duty in the history of judicial review if the length of the Transforming Care queue (people with learning disabilities and autism stuck in psychiatric hospitals for want of care in the community - simply because it has not been commissioned) is anything to go by! 
  • Non-assessment, or never-ending assessment and reviews, in hospital, while time marches on, and the person ceases to be even passably fit for discharge;
  • Assessment under the chargeable Care Act instead - as if that is something that can or should be done first! That is not how public law works!
  • No s117 plans, or simply 'waffly' plans saying that the luckless service provider should work all that detail out, when the person finally gets out!
  • Interminable disputes about how the funding should be split - and those agreements kept under wraps!
  • No consideration of whether housing for the person is an implicitly essential part of the plan, in order to make the aftercare purpose of prevention of a further compulsory detention, deliverable - despite at least 5 Ombudsman's decisions saying so, and the case law, such as there is, agreeing.

What do we think that all this will achieve?

These opinions may well be our legacy, if CASCAIDr cannot survive as a charity, which is on the cards, right now. We can't afford to attract sufficient skilled people to offer casework, and that is the reason for existence.

Whatever happens to CASCAIDr, though, or to community care law, and whatever happens at, or after the next election to social services policy, the sector needs to be held to account against laws and legal principles. This campaign is our way of making sure that members of the public can force councils and ICBs to address coherent legal arguments, without the people who are owed the duty, according to Parliament's intention, having to spend their own funds, on trying to find out the answers.

We can't teach community care law to unlimited numbers of people; in crisis. 

We can't make legal aid law firms work with us on referrals, if they don't want to. 

We can't make councils step up to their advice and information duties, properly. 

We can't make funding foundations give us reasons for refusing us the grants for the sort of work we do. 

And we can't make the government keep its promise about putting £5m into nationally applicable advice and information about the Monitoring Officer remedy available to everyone, to quieten down some of the 'noise' which deters people from thinking they can get their heads around it all.

But we can do this - and in so doing, we hope to rekindle an expectation for a public sector ethos, and refresh the government's awareness and the public's headspace for the central importance of public law and legal principle - for all public bodies' legal literacy standards and proper regard for the rule of law. 

We think that every single one of us could well - one day - NEED legality and clarity to exist - for US - within a health and social care safety net. 

Living in a civilised country should involve being able to rely on rights, responsibilities and the rule of law.

We should stress that we're not going to court with the money. We are simply going to ensure that the barristers' opinions are there on the internet in perpetuity for people to access and to use, unless and until a judicial decision proves them to need revision.

We would like to raise £7,500 in the next 30 days - we can then afford to co-fund the project and obtain opinions on all of the matters. Our stretch target is £15,000 by the end of March.

If we don't manage to meet the preliminary target of £7,500K, none of the money anyone promises, will ever be taken from your cards, so ...

Please, please, please - don't let us fail! 

Any barristers - or barristers' chambers, interested in supporting this initiative - please get in touch with [email protected].  

We may be able to combine two or more of the issues for a higher fee than we have in mind for single issues. We've set out the law that needs to be considered, to make it as cost-effective and efficient for the barristers doing this work. We can do this without a solicitor because firstly, we're experts, and secondly, because the Charity has a Bar Standards Board licence which permits direct professional access to the barristers of our choice. 

Thank you!!

Get updates about this case

Subscribe to receive email updates from the case owner on the latest news about the case.

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 7


Feb. 29, 2024

News about CASCAIDr's crack team of counsel!

CASCAIDr's Going Public legacy project has attracted an impressive cohort of barristers from several community care and health law teams, in specialist chambers.

Here they are - with an exciting prospect for a fifth opinion, if our fund goes up another couple of thousand, before the end date.

1. Care Act ‘lite’ -v- the Care Act, regs, Guidance and case law on the minimum process
Steve Broach (KC 2024) (39EC)
Siân McGibbon (Landmark)

2. Nature of the need: is a duty a duty, really, when all councils are broke? and if so, when will breach amount to a breach of human rights or attract a mandatory court order or restitution?
Jenni Richards KC (39EC)
Sian Davies (39EC)

3. Direct Payments and all the disasters that go wrong with them!
Irena Sabic KC (GC)
Bethan Harris, (GC), Ollie Persey (GC), Arianna Kelly (39EC)

4. S117 Mental Health Act aftercare assessment and care planning challenges
Still negotiating!

And if the fund gets a bit bigger, CASCAIDr will commission a fifth opinion about the sort of needs profile of care and support eligibility that could trigger accommodation 'plus' rights to ordinary housing, directly under the Care Act, for disabled nationals of this country. 

Siân McGibbon (Landmark), Tim Baldwin (GC)

Update 6


Feb. 18, 2024

The moot point in Housing, Mental Health & Care Act law re accommodation 'plus'!

The hardest opinion, in our view, of the 4 we're going to commission, is about when the housing element of a package of care or mental health aftercare should be directly provided by the council or the NHS, rather than through Housing Act routes.

We think that the answer is 'when their needs are such as to amount to needs for care that can't practicably be provided, other than in the context of a stable and suitably located property' - otherwise known in the legal sector as accommodation 'plus' needs.

That concept has received the most attention in the context of people subject to immigration control or in breach of immigration control, because such people are denied access to benefits and housing - rights that ARE available for nationals of this country.

We're interested to have counsel explore what sort of profile of needs - when it's put forward by a person under the Mental Health Act OR the Care Act, particularly when it's a person who's been stuck in a psychiatric hospital for years, mainly because there is no accommodation available - will trigger accommodation plus rights.

We think it could be an answer for people in the Transforming Care cohort - people with learning disabilities and/or autism, who are not conventionally mentally ILL, but count as mentally disordered, and for whom 'care in the community' has not worked or been made available - because no council or ICB has been sufficiently well funded to keep the person appropriately safe..

We're delighted to say that Tim Baldwin of Garden Court Chambers, is willing to step up to this one, and we look forward to chewing over those issues.

Update 5


Feb. 17, 2024

The difficulties which people with s117 aftercare rights face every day

"My daughter was awarded a direct payment for her s117 aftercare rights, in July - my daughter requires 24/7 care. She was awarded 62 hours of paid-for support per week, and I cover the remaining hours of support voluntarily. 

The direct payment 'rules' from this council and ICB, however, require that the budgeted hours are spent within a strict 4 week period. This 4 week period is decided by the direct payments 'managed budget' system.

This is an unnecessary constraint on the budget. It has caused problems regarding my work as I am beginning to work freelance and will need periods when I require 24 hours or care over a number of days, for her, as opposed to other periods when I will be able to provide greater input.

The legal purpose of this direct payment is to ensure appropriate aftercare for the particular care needs and environment in which the person is living, and I know it should be flexible."

CASCAIDr advised this carer to write to the Monitoring Officer, to require that statutory officer, in charge of governance according to law, to investigate the restrictions placed on the woman's daughter’s s117 aftercare direct payment.

We did so on the footing that such restrictions clearly negate the purpose of the direct payment framework and make no allowance for fluctuating needs or the gaps being filled by informal carers.

In any case where the availability of the informal carer - the person making it possible for the aftercare authorities to save such a lot of money - is going to be unpredictable, the flexibility needed to make the plan work - (and nobody is saying that commissioning this sort of care flexibly would even be possible for the s117 authorities, please note) - is completely precluded by such a tight restriction. 

We made it clear that the carer needed to say that she was making a referral under s5(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and thus triggering the MO’s duty (NOT to be mistaken for making an ordinary complaint!) to consider whether or not this is a likely contravention of an enactment or rule of law, and saying that she knew that there is case law on the illegality of conditions that negate choice and flexibility....

This produced this upbeat news the very next day:

"Thank you for your advice. They are backing down on the inflexibility of how I spend it!"

Yay! Another satisfied client....but people need to know about the Monitoring Officer, and about the legal principles underpinning s117 aftercare, to make use of legal principles like the one we identified.

In the same week, we heard this from another ex student of ours:

"I have received a new direct payment agreement after a Review which is much more restrictive than the last one I signed.  For example, the clause saying I can hold 8 weeks DP in the account has been removed; cheque and debit card transactions are no longer allowed from my DP bank account etc. There was no consultation or notice, but perhaps there doesn't have to be?"  

We said this: "The first place to look is at the old one for anything about due process before changing the rules. As you say it may be that there was an expiration clause and once it expired it gave them a chance to bring in a new one, but the basis on which the person is granted a DP - the standard and any extra personalised conditions - and any change to them - still amount to a public law decision - not a merely contractual one."

The council in question had delegated all its social care functions to an NHS Trust, but is still liable for any illegality, in law. So it was off to the Monitoring Officer in that council too, for that enquirer, for a challenge to flexibility, again on the footing it negates the legislative intent.

We think we can discern a covert interest in deterring people from even having a direct payment, in s117 cases, in situations such as these.

Please donate to get us nearer to our stretch target of £15,000. 

Update 4


Feb. 17, 2024

A great personal insight into why legal principles matter so much!!

Ellie is a very happy young woman who has been in supported living since 2011. She has multiple disabilities but she is independently-minded, and her superpower is spreading joy in the world.

CASCAIDr has helped me as her parent and representative to understand the law properly, and to deal with care providers, housing associations and the local authority in a way which has got results. 

Getting our daughter onto direct payments so that we could choose a trusted care provider instead of having one foisted on us, despite her living in shared housing, and getting, and defending, an adequate personal budget for her care needs, are the main positive outcomes. 

Understanding the Mental Capacity Act, and the role of the Court of Protection, has enabled us to deal with best interests decisions better. 

Understanding the proper separation of housing and care in supported living has prevented the local authority from treating supported living like a cut price care home,  and has given our daughter a chance to choose who she lives with and who provides her care. 

As a result her mental health has improved radically and she is again the happy person that she was before her services were cut in 2017, and then suffered a long period of poor care commissioning and poor housing management.

"Clarity on community care law is critical for professionals, parents, clients and carers. Obtaining authoritative opinions on important points of law is really worthwhile, especially when there are ignorant and even cynical abuses of the law happening every day in the care system."


Update 3


Feb. 15, 2024

Day 5 update

Wow! We've made our initial target, in just 4 days. Thank you to everyone who has donated so far.

Today's story is about the 3rd topic on which we're going to be getting a barrister's opinion - direct payments and everything that tends to go wrong with THEM...

One of our clients, who's had to come back several times, now, is married to a woman with complex mixed physical and mental ill- health needs - and the man was overwhelmed with caring. He was depressed, exhausted and not able to think through the options on his own.

The only way he could see his wife accepting input from someone other than him, was if her sister could be paid for personal care, household support, and gentle coaxing perhaps, back to taking some interest in life.

He'd been told about direct payments but the social worker had said that his wife could not employ a relative.

Well, that's rubbish - the rule for Direct Payments is that one can't generally employ a close relative living in the same household. 

But a) there is scope for it, if it's necessary (and if not now, in this particular climate of scarce social care staff, nationwide, then when, we wonder?)
and b) the sister wouldn't be living in the house at all!

So that was the first issue we focused on, and that was quickly put right with one letter to the council's Monitoring Officer: their job is as governance lead for the whole output of any council, would you believe. The Guidance doesn't mention THEM!!

How many hours per day was seen as needed for a tolerable sustainable level of wellbeing?

The council had provided a rate for 1.25 hours a day after its first assessment. 

This really did not touch the sides: the man was on his knees from exhaustion and the woman was not really coping at all.

We got the care package offer up, by reference to careful presentation of the evidence, to 5.5 hours a day - and got a carer's support entitlement of 3 hours a week, for the man too.

This has revolutionised the household's wellbeing: the woman has had her self-esteem restored; she is less anxious and paranoid, her husband gets some respite and crucially feels he is not alone in his commitment. They now have a mobility car to use, too, for getting the woman out more, and the couple are eating much more healthily.

They've even been able to go on a very carefully planned trip abroad, to see relatives, and it all went very well and was uplifting for all concerned.

The family members in that country were astonished at the generosity of the State in Britain, and the adult social care system, given what it's done for their family member.

This should make us all think about how lucky we are, and how this safety net which most of us don't know about or take for granted, must not be allowed to disappear.

We've assisted with legal advice, twice more, since this care plan was first set up: once over a CUT to the care plan, which the Panel had decided upon, but without following proper process under s27; that took longer to fight about, but we succeeded in the end.

Secondly, we coached the man as to how to prepare for the dreaded annual review.

He was absolutely stunned (and so were we!), when despite some basic improvements in the woman's conditions, the husband and sister were able to explain to the reviewer that a managed need was still a need and that progress was visibly tentative, with unpredictable setbacks - such that the package was NOT cut at all.

In fact, the man's carer support hours were slightly increased.

And to round off, the man wrote to us today, saying this:

"I have been able to resolve an issue with the council on the carer's holiday entitlement, and got her paid for 48 hours which the payroll service used by the council, was refusing to pay. It was an argument about taking holidays in advance where the PA has worked more than one year. I am getting better at communication and using the law. You would be proud of your student!"

Update 2


Feb. 15, 2024

Day 4 update

Here's a case on why delay is not something that one should just put up with. 


A couple whose autistic son was living with them, but without a comprehensive care package, 'pending' a move to supported accommodation, were at the ends of their tethers. Their younger child and the mother were at risk from the difficulties with managing the much loved son. His needs were never assessed as being for less than 2:1 care for 24 hours a day. 


The council had not done a specification for what they thought they would need to commission, once housing was organised. But it did not offer any interim care plan for an 18 month period. No care provider would respond to the invitation to tender for his care at the fees being offered and without a property on the horizon. 


The parents had found a space in the local town where it was possible to commission a package of respite for a few hours a day for the man - which gave him respite from his family home as well. But even that provider needed inducting into the best way to provide care so the father was paid a rate through a direct payment arrangement along with permission to be paid from that payment. He supported his son AT the facility until the provider had become accustomed to what worked for the man. 


At no time was there any Authorised Person properly appointed by the council to employ the father or both parents, under s32 of the Care Act for someone lacking in capacity to understand the essence of a direct payment.


We became involved, and pointed out that the elements of the parents' care input, over and above what they were prepared to do voluntarily -ie that which was being required in default of any other adequate response, needed to be paid for, under the doctrine of restitution. The rate at which the father had been paid for his help with the respite package, and the size of the future care plan made it clear that the council was saving thousands, through sheer inaction. 


We also pointed out that unless the council wished to acknowledge a need to provide the accommodation as part and parcel of the care plan it should have been organising, councils don't in fact PROVIDE housing under the Care Act. 


Supported Living is not a council service in s8. The care and support are simply care at home, the person's home being signposted to, through Housing Authorities, or more commonly, obscure arrangements with private sector, or voluntary organisations or housing association owners, for maximising housing benefit for rent and 'service' charges outside of the care plan. In these arrangements, the all-important tenancy is usually signed by a deputy, attorney or the Court of Protection. 


As there had not been even one single contact with the council's in-house housing rights specialist for taking forwards its supposed ‘preferred’ outcome for supported living, this news was revelatory to the parents; they saw at once that their son could have been having his needs met in bespoke registered residential accommodation and that it would not be 'letting him down' to accept that that was a practicable solution (if he was not to be sectioned and then stuck in psychiatric facilities in a medicalised hospital environment).


The council paid back £76,000 for the 18 months' worth of care that the couple had provided in lieu of the council discharging its duty. This saved the parents' family home and enabled them to return to being relatives. The amount did not include anything for night time care by agreement with his parents.  

CP v NE Lincs [2019] was cited to the Monitoring Officer, in which LJ Haddon-Cave said this:

  • A breach of a statutory duty is a breach of statutory duty. It is, by definition, unlawful conduct. Unlawful conduct by a public body cannot merely be discounted or ignored.
  • Moreover, s26 [of the Care Act] is no minor matter. A local authority’s statutory duty under s. 26 of the Care Act 2014 to provide a personal budget to meet a person’s care and support needs is fundamental to the operation of the care and support scheme which the Care Act 2014 underpins.
  • In the present case, having found the Council in breach of its statutory duties, [the judge in the High Court] should have gone on to hold that the Council had acted unlawfully and, accordingly, was liable in principle to compensate CP in respect of any monetary shortfall in accordance with normal public law principles of legal accountability of public bodies.

    Since it had not offered anything ELSE to CP, the council could not therefore say it did not TAKE the benefit of the value proffered by the provider it had refused to contract with - and that provider deserved to be paid. The council had therefore been unjustly enriched. 

Update 1


Feb. 14, 2024

Day 3 update

Thank you to everyone who has pledged their support for us so far. We wanted to flag up some examples of how much difference it makes, having the knowledge to be able to assert your rights. Today we are highlighting a success story related to sorting out Care Act processes ('or conversations') and making the council shape up...

One of our clients contacted us primarily to see what we thought of the draft response he had received from the LGO regarding his friend, X, who had experienced, in his and her view, a wholly unsatisfactory approach to re-assessment, care planning and support from a number of professionals (health and social care). 

X has a complex range of mental and physical needs and felt that the professionals she'd been seen by simply did not understand the effect that her brain injury has had on her and that they were closed off to the challenges she faced daily as a result. The support she had been receiving did not reflect the unique nature of those daily challenges and X was at the end of her tether.

The outcome of the work we undertook on the LGO's draft response led to the Ombudsman advising the council to apologise for the effect their actions had had on X. Given we had also highlighted the areas where ASC could better support X, the council agreed to review X's case and we ultimately persuaded them to put the following in place:

• An independent assessment by a specialist organisation of the impact the brain injury had had on X, for supporting the re-assessment that was agreed;
• Support for a newly allocated worker to complete brain injury training;
• Support for that worker in decision-making regarding X’s assessment taking the independent outside assessor's experience into account;

The client emailed to thank us our input - which was all based on understanding the law. He said that 'This has led to the change of position by the Council - something I had been trying and failing to achieve for years’.

And eventually we received this hugely satisfying message:

'We FINALLY got there Belinda!!!! 🙏🙏🙏

Thank you so much for helping us pushing them for expert brain injury advice 🙏🙏🙏'

The resulting barristers' opinions from this fundraising drive in our Going Public campaign will enable us to leave a lasting legacy to enable people like X to have a freely available resource that can give them the power to achieve results like this themselves - through reliance on established legal principle, the Guidance, and the case law.

Please donate and share, thank you.

Get updates about this case

Subscribe to receive email updates from the case owner on the latest news about the case.

    There are no public comments on this case page.