What is the right approach to Care Act assessments?

The High Court has provided guidance on the five stages of a Care Act assessment and on the meaning of accommodation-related care and support needs. David Lawson and Katherine Hampshire analyse six key points arising from the judgment.   

In a judgment giving guidance on the approach to be taken to Care Act 2014 assessments, the High Court has distinguished between ‘provision of care and support for which a home is needed’ and ‘provision which a home would need so as to be equipped for the relevant person’, holding that the former can trigger a duty to accommodate under the Care Act 2014 whereas the latter cannot.

On 29 January 2025, Fordham J handed down judgment in two linked cases, heard across eight days in 2024: BLZ 1 (R (BLZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin)) and (BLZ 2: R (BLZ) v Leeds City Council [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin)).

Both cases were brought by BLZ, a foreign national offender living in Home Office bail accommodation. BLZ 1 was about Home Office planning for the allocation of suitable Home Office Bail Accommodation. The crux of BLZ 2 was whether BLZ had accommodation-related needs for care and support which would trigger a duty on the Defendant local authority to provide him accommodation under the Care Act 2014.

The answer was ‘no’. In refusing the claim, Fordham J gave helpful guidance on the approach to Care Act 2014 assessments, and as to what counts as an accommodation-related care and support need.

(1) There are five distinct stages to a Care Act 2014 assessment

The Court held that there are five distinct stages to a Care Act 2014 assessment:

1. Needs Stage: What, if any, needs for care and support do I assess the individual as having? (s9 Care Act 2014)
2. Eligible-Needs Stage: Which, if any, of the needs for care and support meet the eligibility criteria? (s13 Care Act 2014)
3. Duty Stage: Are the statutory preconditions met (s18 Care Act 2014) and the statutory prohibitions inapplicable (ss21-23 Care Act 2014), so the duty arises to meet the eligible needs for care and support?
4. Power Stage: If no duty arises, are the statutory preconditions met (s19 Care Act 2014) and the statutory prohibitions inapplicable (ss21-23 Care Act 2014), so that the power arises to meet the needs for care and support; and, if so, is it appropriate to exercise the power?
5. Action Stage: If the duty arises, or the power is being exercised, what action is the appropriate planned response? (ss24-25 Care Act 2014).

This structure is a useful way for authorities to ensure they are looking at all elements of the Care Act. It applies generally, not just to questions about accommodation related needs.

(2) ‘Safe-home equipment’ such as bathroom rails, shower stools, powered doors, video doorbells, falls alarms, or an adapted cooker, cannot trigger a duty to accommodate under the Care Act 2014.

An issue in this case was whether BLZ’s care needs triggered a duty on the local authority to provide accommodation.  Care needs that would trigger this duty are called “accommodation related care needs” and the question most often arises for people who are excluded from other ways to access housing, such as the BLZ. 

One accommodation related care need could be the need for help washing – but what if the person can wash themselves so long as their bathroom is adjusted?

Take the example of rails in a shower, so you can steady yourself.  Bathroom rails are “useless” without a bathroom and shower stools useless without a shower.  However, a need for accommodation alone is not an eligible care and support need, and Fordham J reasoned that these adaptations to accommodation are more like a need for accommodation than they are like care and support requiring accommodation.

Where a person would benefit from such equipment and does not have access to it, they will get the equipment from the local authority but not accommodation in which to place it. 

(3) Level access accommodation is not an accommodation-related need for care and support

What about people who need a certain sort of accommodation?  For example, a wheelchair user would need wheelchair compatible accommodation for independent living.  Many people cannot manage stairs.  The judgment concludes that a need for wider doors or level access accommodation is not itself an accommodation-related need for care and support. Level access or wider doorframes are adaptations that a property might need in order to be safe and suitable for an individual. They are not needs for care and support requiring the provision of accommodation.

(4) Current accommodation is not to be disregarded when assessing P’s eligible needs

The High Court clarified that current living accommodation is not disregarded at the needs and eligible needs stages. In practice, this means that where P is assessed in their current living accommodation, the social worker does not have to imagine P is homeless or in accommodation with a different layout when assessing which needs for care and support P has and which needs meet the eligibility criteria. The social worker can assess P’s needs as they present in P’s accommodation.   This accords with intuition – he welfare of almost anyone would quickly decline towards needing care and support  if street homeless and there are various principles which prevent this leading to Care Act accommodation – for example that a need for accommodation alone is not a need for care. That the Eligibility Criteria regulations refer to use of community facilities and making use of a home safely does not require the state to provide those things (above and beyond its other duties to do so).

(5)  Local authorities can take into account other provision when assessing whether P’s needs are being met

Local authorities can take into account whether P’s needs are being met by provision other than local authority provision when considering the duty, power, and action stages. This is in line with the Care Act statutory guidance, which requires local authorities to discount provision made by the NHS and which states that local authorities are not under a duty to meet any needs that are being met by a carer. Again this seems intuitively right (and can lead in effect to negotiations with carers, who may say that they cannot manage to continue the provision they are making) but it is an important confirmation of a common issue in assessment and provision of social care.

(6)  Home office asylum accommodation and home office bail accommodation can be considered at the needs and eligible needs stage, but are ‘legally irrelevant’ in the duty/power and action stages

In practice, this means that a local authority assessing an individual in home office accommodation does not have to posit the individual homeless when assessing their (eligible) needs for care and support, but cannot rely on the individual being in home office accommodation when determining whether to act. So, if the person does have eligible accommodation related needs then the local authority must meet them, even if the person is entitled to Home Office bail accommodation.

Concluding thoughts

The judgement in BLZ 2 is notable for its comprehensive review of the approach to Care Act 2014 accommodation.

It is also a welcome clarification of the position as regards ‘safe home equipment’ and care and support needs in a world where assistive technology is becoming increasingly common in homes.

Local authorities who proactively provide support such as a falls alarm, pursuant to their s19 Care Act 2014 power, can be reassured that in doing so they are not implicitly recognising an entitlement to accommodation through the Care Act 2014 (though of course, the recipient may still be entitled to accommodation under the Care Act 2014 if they also have an accommodation related need for care and support).  

The other part of the case which is generally applicable is breaking down the steps in assessment in a way which helps to analyse the different decisions at each point.

In summary: a local authority will be required to provide Care Act 2014 accommodation where (i) accommodation is necessary for the effective delivery of provision to meet P’s eligible care and support needs, but not where what P requires is equipment that would enable P to live more independently or a certain lay out to the accommodation, and (ii) the local authority has a duty to meet P’s needs, and (iii) P does not have access to any legally relevant accommodation at which the needs can be met.

David Lawson and Katherine Hampshire of Serjeants Inn represented Leeds Citty Council, interested party in BLZ 1 and defendant local authority in BLZ 2.