“You have completed a review of a care package in respect of an older woman who lives in her own home. You present your recommendations for enhanced services to the panel responsible for resource allocation. The chair of the panel responds.”

“The service user has been supported with a community care package that is at the ceiling allowed by the local authority. However, the services you are now requesting exceed the financial limit allowed. The panel is not prepared to breach its resource allocation model and you are asked either to consider residential care or to propose an alternative care package in the community”

Now you need to decide what to do in this situation, select from the options below:

  1. Do you argue that the panel’s prioritisation of the authority’s resource position is unlawful because it fails to consider the case in the round?
  2. Do you argue that the local authority should support your client in her own home because that will best meet her needs?
  3. Do you follow the panel’s request because the local authority has established this resource allocation arrangement for complex cases?
  4. Do you argue that your client should remain at home because that is what she chooses to do?

A. This answer shows that you have a tendency toward technical orientation

B. This answer shows that you have a tendency toward need orientation

C. This answer shows that you have a tendency toward procedural orientation

D. This answer shows that you have a tendency toward rights orientation

Before you move on to the next situation, test your knowledge of key aspects of law that are relevant to this situation by answering the question below.

Once supporting a client in the community, it is unlawful to propose residential care instead because of the client’s Article 8 right to private and family life.

The Correct answer is False

R v Lancashire CC ex parte Ingham & Whalley [1995] CO/774/95 – It is lawful to take resources into account when deciding which services to provide to meet assessed needs, and to find an alternative way of meeting needs, providing a reassessment has taken place – see also R v Gloucestershire CC and another, ex parte Barry [1997] 2 All ER 1]