The Stoke Judicial Review 2025

The Stoke Judicial Review 2025

SARCP (a body of care providers in Staffordshire) v Stoke-on-Trent City Council

The court found that the council's fee decision was unlawful on five grounds, identifying the following five issues with the council’s decision:

1. The council failed to adequately take the results of the consultation into account in its decision.
2. In its decision, the council failed to take into account its statutory duties under the Care Act 2014.
3. The council failed to follow statutory guidance, and specifically the duty under s78 of the Care Act 2014 to follow the Department of Health and Social Care’s Care and Support Statutory Guidance, not properly considering the actual costs of care or inflationary pressures.
4. There was a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, as the council did not consider the potential discriminatory impact on disabled or elderly residents of care homes
5. The decision was irrational in comparison to the evidence and properly relevant matters. While the council had set a goal of ‘keeping people in their own homes’, it did not consider the needs of residents who were already in care homes and unlikely to return to their homes.

The court made a declaration of the unlawful conduct of the council, quashed the council’s decision and ordered the council to re-take its decision within 28 days, this time taking into consideration the relevant factors.

The judgment may reassure those seeking to challenge local authorities in similar circumstances. It is encouraging to know that the court remains willing to hold local authorities to their public law standards and to allow representative bodies standing to bring challenges on behalf of the providers they represent.

The judgment makes it clear that when setting an annual increase to care home fees, local authorities must consider much more than solely their growing budgetary pressures.

Local authorities must not only follow a proper consultation exercise, but must really consider the outcome of this in their decision to uplift fees. 

They must evidence that they have considered factors such as the actual cost of care.

Local authorities must also ensure that they fulfil their statutory duties under the Care Act 2014, namely, as highlighted by this judgment:

• to promote the efficient and effective operation of a market with a view to ensuring a variety of providers and high-quality services;
• to take into account the importance of ensuring the market remains sustainable, for example by setting fees at a sustainable level and not just offering other support;
• to have regard to the importance of fostering continuous improvement in the quality of care services and the ability of providers to comply with CQC standards and improve quality given the pressures on overheads by low fees;
• to have regard to the importance of fostering a workforce able to deliver high-quality care, considering factors such as the rise in the National Living Wage; and
• to have regard for the importance of promoting the well-being of care-home residents due to the ‘indirect impact’ on them of local authority fees not covering the provider’s actual costs of care, either inhibiting providers from meeting all their needs and/or leading them to increase the level of ‘top-ups’ from residents or their families.

Equally, this case may empower care providers who are trying to run their care homes sustainably when faced with having to absorb increases in inflation and the National Living Wage (as well as ENIC’s). The judgment is available here.