R. (ON THE APPLICATION OF SAVVA) V. KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA RLBC Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), EWHC 414 (Admin); [2010] EWCA Civ 1209

This case concerned two significant issues of community care law (i) the operation of the local authority's resource allocation systems (RAS) for calculating personal budgets and (ii) the giving of reasons in personal budget decisions.

(i) The local authority's RAS tool, developed as part of a pilot programme with the Department of Health adopted a relative, non-linear model for matching care needs to costs across the borough. This was challenged on the grounds that it breached the local authority's duty to meet the claimant's needs in absolute terms (in accordance with R. v Gloucestershire CC Ex p. Barry [1997] A.C. 584). The court held that the method of calculating the budget was lawful since the RAS produced an indicative budget only. The local authority's social care experts then applied their knowledge to produce a final budget which met all the claimant's absolute needs. (ii) Although there was no statutory duty on a local authority to give reasons for how it arrived at a particular monetary personal budget, there was a clear policy to provide service users with clear information about how personal budgets were arrived at and fairness demanded that reasons be supplied by the local authority on request.

Sarah Sackman was instructed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Legal Services. She appeared on behalf of the local authority in the High Court and drafted the cross-appeal and response in the Court of Appeal with Nathalie Lieven QC (Landmark Chambers). Due to the commencement of her Fellowship in Harvard Sarah was unable to appear in the Court of Appeal.