Latest Community Care Law Reports cases

The June 2025 edition of the Community Care Law Reports published by the Legal Action Group is available now. It’s produced four times a year and features six fully reported and headnoted leading community care cases in each edition, and a legal update from leading practitioner Shu Shin Luh, also from Doughty Street. My editorial as General Editor introducing the current crop of cases is below.  Included are cases on services for children, pressures on funding, rights to same-sex carers, fees for care homes, and the relationship between care orders and deprivation of liberty orders for young people. 

To subscribe to CCLR see here

https://www.lag.org.uk/subscriptions/205459/2025-community-care-law-reports-subscription

Editorial Review

Three recent High Court and Court of Appeal judgments shed light on how the legal system is addressing the tension between local authority funding constraints and the needs of disabled children and young people. These cases highlight the ongoing struggle between statutory obligations and financial realities. Also in this issue, we explore cases involving care home funding, the relationship between care orders and deprivation of liberty orders for older children, and whether there is a duty on local authorities to provide same-sex carers. 

In R (AB) v Bristol City Council [2025] EWHC 893 (Admin), Linden J ruled on claims brought by three children focused on ‘safety valve agreements’ (SVAs), contracts between local authorities and the Department for Education designed to address substantial deficits in Dedicated Schools Grant funding for special educational needs provision.

The claimants argued that entering these agreements without proper consultation violated the Children and Families Act 2014. They contended the agreements would inevitably lead to cuts affecting SEND provision, with one local authority’s projected financial targets requiring a 20% reduction in spending over nine years compared with current trajectories.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the SVAs were high-level agreements that did not bind authorities to specific cuts or detailed implementation measures. The court emphasised that the authorities remained obligated to meet their statutory duties to individual children, and that the SVAs actually unlocked substantial additional funding. The judge ruled it was rational for authorities to conclude that further consultation was not needed, particularly as key strategies had already been subject to public engagement.

In R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 393, the Court of Appeal considered a severely disabled young man’s challenge to the local authority’s policy of charging adults for social care services. The appellant, who was dependent on state benefits and would never be able to work, argued that the policy discriminated against severely disabled people unable to work, as compared with disabled people who could work (whose earnings are statutorily protected from charges).

The court upheld Collins Rice J’s ruling ([2024] EWHC 701 (Admin), (2024) 27 CCLR 275) that while the charging policy did discriminate, it was justified by Birmingham’s ‘catastrophic financial position’ following its effective bankruptcy in 2023. The court expressed reservations about the case R (SH) v Norfolk CC [2020] EWHC 3436 (Admin), (2021) 24 CCLR 673, which had previously found similar discriminatory charging unlawful, creating some uncertainty in this area. 

The court also rejected arguments that the local authority had breached its public sector equality duty, finding that the officers who made the decision to maintain the policy had properly considered equality implications.

In R (A) v North Central London ICB [2025] EWCA Civ 485, the court examined a case involving a severely disabled 12-year-old boy whose parents had privately funded his care after rejecting the provider chosen by his local integrated care board (ICB).

The court upheld the High Court finding that the ICB had breached its statutory duty to arrange an updated health care plan reflecting the child’s education, health and care plan. However, it quashed the mandatory order requiring a new plan after new evidence emerged showing a draft plan had been in development.

Importantly, the court rejected the parents’ claim for restitution of approximately £10,000 per week that they had spent on private care. The court ruled that the costs resulted from the parents’ choice to reject the ICB’s commissioned provider, not from the failure to arrange an updated care plan, and therefore the requirement for ‘unjust enrichment’ was not met.

Moving on from cases where the funding of services underpinned the dispute before the court, in R (VRP) v Kingston upon Thames RBLC [2025] EWHC 504 (Admin), the High Court addressed whether local authorities have a legal duty to operate systems ensuring same-sex intimate care for female service users with disabilities.

The claimant, a 19-year-old woman with severe disabilities, argued that the local authority had a legal obligation to implement a system ensuring female service users receive same-sex personal care by default. 

Heather Williams J rejected this claim, finding that none of the statutory frameworks cited (Care Act 2014, Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998) imposed such an obligation. The court concluded the authority’s existing practices already provided appropriate safeguards despite lacking a formal written policy, and resulted in same-sex personal and intimate care being provided to female service users, save in (accepted) exceptional circumstances, and that breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR were avoided.

Evidence showed the local authority recorded relevant information about service users’ sex where necessary and communicated these preferences to care providers. The existing regulatory framework governing care providers was deemed sufficient to protect service users’ dignity and safety.

In R (SARCP) v Stoke-on-Trent City Council [2025] EWHC 18 (Admin), a care home providers’ trade association (SARCP) challenged a local authority’s decision to increase care home fees by only 1.4% in 2024, well below inflation, and ignoring a 9.8% increase in the National Living Wage affecting 70% of care costs.

The council argued this was a private contractual matter not amenable to judicial review, but the court rejected this, finding the decision had sufficient public law elements as it involved duties under the Care Act 2014, particularly the ‘market-shaping duty’ to ensure sustainable care provision. The court upheld the majority of the grounds advanced. The local authority had failed properly to consider detailed consultation responses, and had had no regard to statutory guidance which requited consideration of the ‘actual cost of good quality care’. There was a breach of the public sector equality duty, which required consideration of the impact on disabled/elderly residents, and the decision gave no reasoning beyond confirming the original proposal. The judge quashed the decision and ordered it be retaken within 28 days, but refused to require re-consultation. 

Finally, in West Sussex CC v AB and CD [2025] EWCA Civ 132, the Court of Appeal clarified when care orders under the Children Act 1989 remain appropriate alongside deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLs) orders for adolescents with complex needs. The case involved a 17-year-old young woman with multiple diagnoses requiring 24-hour supervision. Despite being placed at her adoptive mother’s home with comprehensive support under DOLs orders, the court also imposed a care order, which the local authority appealed. The court set aside the care order, finding that care orders should not be used merely to ‘galvanise’ authorities into providing services they were already obligated to deliver. In this case, court oversight through DOLs proceedings provided sufficient monitoring. The mother’s historical non-compliance was minimal compared with her sustained support, and the potential negative impact on the teenager of discovering she was subject to a care order was insufficiently considered. The court distinguished this case from Re JR (deprivation of liberty: care order: principles of care) [2024] EWHC 564 (Fam), where significant parental divergence and questionable authority commitment justified a care order alongside DOLs.