Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal concerns the extent of consultation required when a local authority reconfigures its day care services and subsequently decides to close a specific day centre. The appellant, a 63-year-old individual with a learning disability and substantial care needs, had been using the services of Hartleys Day Centre. The local authority, referred to as the Council, decided to close this centre as part of a broader reconfiguration influenced by budgetary constraints and government encouragement towards personalised budgets for disabled persons.
The Council conducted general consultations about the new system, indicating that some day centres would close. The appellant, represented by her litigation friend and sister, contended that there should have been specific consultation regarding the closure of Hartleys Day Centre before the decision was made. Additionally, there was an allegation that the Council failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
There is no statutory obligation to consult on withdrawal or substantial alteration of day care services, but the Council accepted that fairness requires consultation with users. The dispute centers on how specific this consultation must be.
Procedurally, the decision to close Hartleys Day Centre was challenged and rejected by the Administrative Court judge. This appeal was brought to consider whether the consultation was lawful and whether the Public Sector Equality Duty was breached.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of a statutory duty, the common law duty of fairness requires specific consultation with users and carers before closing an individual day centre.
- Whether consultation on a general reconfiguration of day services, indicating some centres would close, suffices or whether separate consultation on each individual centre’s closure is necessary.
- Whether the Council complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in the process of closing the day centre.
- Whether any relief should be granted given that the day centre has already closed and staff dispersed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The common law requires fairness when withdrawing or substantially changing a benefit such as day centre services.
- This duty of fairness mandates consultation with users and carers of the specific day centre to be closed.
- The service provided by Hartleys Day Centre constituted a benefit to be withdrawn, triggering the duty to consult.
- Consultation must relate to a specific proposal for closure, not merely a generic reconfiguration plan.
- No specific proposal for closure was ever presented to the appellant or her sister for comment.
- No consultation took place regarding Hartleys Day Centre’s closure, rendering the decision unlawful.
- A declaration of unlawfulness should be granted, and the Council should be required to reconsider the closure with proper consultation.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Council conducted extensive consultations in 2011 and 2012 on the move to personalised adult day care, charging policies, and the future role of day centres.
- Consultations clearly indicated to participants that some day centres would close as part of the reconfiguration.
- After these consultations, no further consultation was necessary for closing particular day centres.
- The choice of consultation method is a matter for the Council and should only be challenged on unreasonableness (Wednesbury grounds).
- The August 2013 decision was an integrated decision about adult day services as a whole; isolating one centre’s closure for separate scrutiny is inappropriate.
- No relief should be granted, or at most a declaration, since the centre has closed and staff dispersed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Devon County Council, ex parte Baker [1995] 1 All E.R. 75 |
Common law duty of fairness requiring consultation before closure of residential care homes; essentials of consultation include early notice, reasonable time for objections, and consideration of objections. |
The Court applied the principles to day centre closures, finding no substantive difference between residential homes and day centres regarding consultation requirements. |
| R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning (1986) 84 L.G.R. 168 |
Established requirements for consultation including giving reasons and adequate opportunity to comment. |
Referenced as foundational authority for consultation duties, supporting the need for meaningful consultation on specific proposals. |
| AP Picture Houses v Wednesbury |
Standard for judicial review of reasonableness of public authority decisions, including consultation methods. |
The Court noted that the Council’s choice of consultation method could only be challenged if it was unreasonable in this sense. |
| R (Wainwright) v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 2062 |
Clarified extent of duty to consult and discretion of public bodies in consultation methods. |
Used to support that the Council has wide discretion in consultation method but must still meet fairness requirements. |
| Council of Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 |
Legitimate expectation as basis for procedural fairness requiring consultation. |
Supported the source of the common law duty to consult as protecting interests in benefits previously enjoyed. |
| R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 13 |
Clarified that Public Sector Equality Duty challenges relate to lawfulness of process, not adequacy of outcome. |
Used to show that the Council complied with the PSED processually despite the closure decision. |
| Haoucher v Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 93 A.L.R. 51 |
Considerations on fairness and legitimate expectation in administrative law. |
Referenced to support the analysis of fairness and the common law duty to consult. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by recognising that there is no statutory duty to consult on withdrawal of day care services but that fairness under common law requires consultation when a benefit is withdrawn or substantially changed. The Court examined the established principles from R v Devon County Council, ex parte Baker and related authorities, which require that affected individuals be informed early enough to make representations and that those representations be considered.
The Court found no meaningful distinction between the closure of residential homes and day centres in terms of consultation requirements, given the serious impact on users and their carers. It held that the Council’s general consultations on reconfiguration and personalisation, which indicated some centres would close, did not amount to consultation on the specific proposal to close Hartleys Day Centre.
The Court rejected the Council’s submission that the method and extent of consultation were matters solely within its discretion, emphasizing that fairness is ultimately a question for the court. It held that fairness required consultation with users and carers of the specific day centre before its closure.
Regarding the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, the Court found that the Council had complied with its procedural obligations by conducting widespread consultations and completing an Equality Impact Needs Assessment. Any failure related solely to the lack of consultation on the specific closure, which did not amount to a separate breach of the PSED.
On relief, the Court acknowledged that the day centre had already closed and staff had dispersed, making an order to quash the decision or mandate a consultation now impractical and unjustified. However, the Court considered it appropriate to issue a formal declaration that the Council had acted unlawfully in failing to consult before closing the centre.
Holding and Implications
The Court allowed the appeal and declared that the Council breached its common law duty of fairness by failing to consult the users and carers of Hartleys Day Centre before deciding to close it.
The direct effect of this decision is a formal declaration of unlawfulness regarding the consultation process. No order was made to quash the closure decision or require a fresh consultation, given the centre’s closure and dispersal of staff. The Court did not establish any new precedent beyond affirming existing principles of consultation and procedural fairness in the context of local authority service reconfiguration.