Statutory Baseline in Community Care: Local Authorities’ Duty to Independently Meet Assessed Needs Before Third-Party Supplementation

Introduction

In Jodie Taylor for Judicial Review ([2025] CSOH 38), the Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session considered whether South Lanarkshire Council lawfully met its statutory duties under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 when it adopted a community care support plan that involved potential reliance on the Independent Living Fund (“ILF”) to supplement assessed care needs. The petitioner, Ms. Taylor, a wheelchair user with hydrocephalus and spina bifida, challenged a reduction in hours compared to her prior package with East Renfrewshire Council. The key issues were:

Whether the Council “reduced” her statutory care by expecting ILF support to meet part of her assessed needs.
Whether the decision was irrational or breached the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.
Whether the Council could lawfully rely on third-party funding to meet assessed statutory needs.

Ms. Taylor’s petition was resisted on the basis that South Lanarkshire Council independently met the full baseline of assessed care hours (48.5/week) and that any ILF funding would merely augment beyond that statutory minimum.

Summary of the Judgment

Lord Lake dismissed the petition. He found that:

The proper comparison is between the respondent’s own needs assessment and the support they actually committed to provide—not the prior package arranged by East Renfrewshire Council.
The Council’s final offer of 48.5 hours of care per week met all “substantial” and “critical” risks identified in their assessment, and therefore satisfied the statutory duty.
The envisaged role of the ILF was purely discretionary and supplemental—intended to add six hours of social support beyond the statutory minimum, not to supplant the Council’s baseline obligation.
Accordingly, there was no unlawful “reduction,” no ultra vires reliance on ILF funding for core statutory needs, no irrationality, and no breach of the public sector equality duty.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Although Jodie Taylor did not rely heavily on case law beyond statutory and policy sources, the court referred to:

Equality Act 2010, section 149: imposing the public sector equality duty (PSED) requiring bodies to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations.
R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345: establishing that public bodies must exercise the PSED “in substance, with rigour, and with an open mind.”
Independent Living Fund Scotland Policy 41: clarifying ILF funds “are not designed to meet statutory needs as assessed by an HSCP/HSCT.”

These authorities framed the debate over whether reliance on ILF funding could breach statutory duties or equality obligations.

Legal Reasoning

Lord Lake’s reasoning can be distilled into three pillars:

Statutory Baseline vs. Previous Provision: The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 requires each local authority to conduct its own assessment of needs (section 12A) and then to provide services only to meet those needs. The Court rejected any automatic entitlement to match a previous authority’s package.
Ultra Vires & Third-Party Funding: A local authority cannot rely on discretionary third-party funds to meet its baseline duty. Here, however, the Council independently committed to 48.5 hours per week—fully satisfying assessed needs—and treated ILF support solely as an optional supplement. Hence, there was no ultra vires reliance.
Irrationality & Public Sector Equality Duty: The petitioner’s challenges on irrationality and breach of PSED (Equality Act 2010, s.149) failed because:
- The Council’s decision logically matched its risk-based assessment criteria.
- The process addressed the statutory equality considerations (eliminating disadvantage, meeting distinct needs, encouraging participation), and there was no evidence of a “tick-box” approach.

Impact

This decision clarifies and cements several important points for Scottish community care law:

Local authorities must independently meet the full statutory assessment before considering third-party supplementation.
Councils are under no duty to replicate care packages arranged by predecessor authorities in different jurisdictions.
Use of discretionary funding streams (like the ILF) is permissible only to enhance—never to supplant—statutory duties.
Challenges to care decisions on irrationality or equality grounds will require proof that the authority failed to follow its own risk-based process or lacked proper regard to its PSED obligations in substance.

Future litigants and local authorities will look to Jodie Taylor as a guide to the limits of third-party funding and the importance of articulating a clear baseline of statutory provision.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ultra Vires: An act is ultra vires (“beyond powers”) if a public body does something outside the scope legally conferred by statute.
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): A legal standard requiring that a public decision be one which no reasonable decision-maker, properly directing itself on the law, could have reached.
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED): A requirement under the Equality Act 2010 (s.149) for public bodies to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations for persons with protected characteristics.
Independent Living Fund (ILF): A discretionary Scottish Government fund to support people with complex disabilities—in addition to, not instead of, services required by statute.

Conclusion

Jodie Taylor for Judicial Review establishes the clarifying principle that a local authority must meet its own assessed community care needs in full before it may prudently deploy third-party resources to augment beyond that baseline. Reliance on external funding streams to satisfy core statutory obligations is ultra vires; however, voluntary supplementation is permissible so long as the statutory baseline is unconditionally met by the authority itself. This decision reinforces rigorous adherence to the two-stage assessment process in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and underscores the importance of substantive compliance with the public sector equality duty.