Failure to use statutory complaints process sees High Court refuse permission for judicial review over care package funding cut

Jonathan Glasson KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, refused an application made by GVH, acting by litigation friend GRT, to judicially review a decision by Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board to reduce the funding for a care package he receives.

Leicester City Council provides the social care concerned but did not participate in the case.

The court heard that GVH has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and requires assistance with all aspects of daily living.

He sought to challenge the board’s decision to reduce funding for his care package from 56 hours a week to 32 following a series of meetings and assessments.

Mr Glasson said GVH argued the board’s complaints process would not provide an "equivalently efficacious remedy" because it would on its past record be “likely to be protracted".

He also contended that any complaint would be adjudicated by the board itself and so would lack independence.

But the board said its complaints process was governed by the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 and thus met this need.

Mr Glasson said: “In cases where there is an alternative administrative procedure such as a complaints procedure, particularly one created by statute (such as is the case here), the courts will require the claimant to use that procedure before resorting to judicial review.”

He added: “In my judgment the complaints procedure provides an effective mechanism which would provide redress conveniently and effectively.”

The deputy judge said the past delays cited by GVH did not mean the complaints procedure would be protracted and lack efficacy, and said it would offer more effective redress than a quashing order.

Mr Glasson found that in any event none of GVH’s grounds were arguable.

Mark Smulian