Welsh council in breach of duty in 2014 Act over provision of respite care, High Court finds

In BNF v Newport City Council [2026] EWHC 1212 (Admin) (20 May 2026), His Honour Judge Jarman concluded that the claimant was not obtaining the care he needed over the six weeks of respite that his sister needed, and therefore the council was in breach of its duty under the 2014 Act and the Code of Practice.

The case concerned a 57-year-old man who requires full-time care. His sister, his litigation friend, has provided for his care since 2011, at the home they share with her son.

Respite care had been provided for several years at a residential care home, owned by the defendant council at the time of the hearing, for short spells totalling six weeks.

However, this had not taken place since December 2022.

The judge said: “The sister's evidence is that this stopped as her brother's dietary and personal care needs were not being met there and that there was a safeguarding issue.

“It is her case that her brother does not want to go back there and that he became aggressive at that time when he was due to attend. She says that this is no longer an option for respite care, and accordingly, that the council is in breach of its duty under the Social Services Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 to provide for her brother's care and support.”

He added: “The council says that it is making direct payments to cover the costs of respite care at [the residential care home], and that that is a sufficient discharge of its duty. There is a subsidiary issue as to whether the council is in breach by not making provision for hydrotherapy.”

Counsel for the claimant relied on various answers of "no" given by the claimant when asked by professionals since 2022 whether he would like to go to the residential care home for respite care.

It was submitted that this continued to be the case when it was explained to him that the management had changed since he was last there.

Counsel for the local authority pointed out that when probed a little further and asked for his reasoning, the claimant replied that he does not like it there, and that it is noisy.

The judge observed: “The council has made a lump sum payment to his sister, made up of the daily rate for respite care at [the residential care home] for a total of six weeks. Her evidence is that she has made extensive enquiries about paying for other respite care but has not found any care that can be provided at this rate. It is common ground that what is needed is respite care totalling six weeks, which has been provided for some years. It is clear that she needs this respite care, and it is clear that her brother needs care whilst she has respite. Other options have been explored in the past, but by the time of the hearing it was common ground that the real crux in this case is whether [the residential care home] is an option.”

Counsel for the local authority submitted that with the right approach to the claimant, then the residential care home would be achievable.

In response, counsel for the claimant realistically accepted that this may be achievable, but submitted that a transition period may take some time and that in the meantime, respite care is still needed. Moreover, he noted there is no plan in place for such a transition.

Analysing the case, His Honour Judge Jarman said: “I have come to the conclusion that by simply maintaining that [the residential care home] is the right option for respite care, without a transition plan or other plan for the smooth return of the claimant to [the residential care home], the council is in breach of the duties set out above and has not promoted the claimant's well-being in this regard and has not had regard to his wishes and feelings so far as reasonably practicable. How this is done is a matter for the council and not for this court, but by way of example only, the sort of transition plan to facilitate a smooth return to [the residential care home] referred to by Mr Gardner [for the claimant], involving perhaps visits to the claimant by staff there, is one option which may be considered.

“At the moment, the claimant is not obtaining the care he needs over the six weeks of respite which his sister needs. It was not suggested, of course, that there should be any form of coercion of the claimant to attend [the residential care home] against his wishes. That would clearly be unlawful under the 2014 Act. It may be, as Mr Hughes [for the council] submits, that the wishes he is presently expressing in this regard are, to use Mr Hughes' word, "soft" in the sense that he may be coaxed. Mr Hughes recognises that this needs very sensitive handling, but submits that with work, he would be able to attend.

“I accept those submissions, but the problem is that the council have undertaken no such work, so that the claimant's wishes, even if soft, remain at present that he does not want to attend.”

The judge found the local authority in breach of its duty under the 2014 Act and the Code of Practice.

The claim succeeded on the first ground, while the hydrotherapy provision ground was dismissed.

Lottie Winson