Ed Mitchell provides an update on flawed decision making & the protection of vulnerable adults
Charging for non-residential care services can be a complex business because the amount of the charge is related not only to a person’s income but also to the way in which they live their life and spend their money.
Therefore, to rush through a charging assessment is to invite error, which is what happened in the claim for judicial review that came before the High Court (Hickinbottom J) in R(B) v Cornwall CC [2009] EWHC 491 (Admin), [2009] All ER (D) 244 (Jun).
The case revolved around “disability related expenditure” (DRE) a concept employed by the statutory charging guidance (Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other Non-residential Social Services, LAC (2001) 32).
DRE is important because it operates in some cases to reduce the charge that a service user has to pay. Under the guidance, DRE is subtracted from the income of a service user in receipt of disability benefits such as the care component of Disability Living Allowance. Only the income left after the subtraction
