Council Decision Challenge Solicitors — Judicial Review of Housing, Social Care, Planning & Local Authority Decisions

Yes — a negative priority need decision can be challenged by requesting a s.202 review within 21 days of the decision. The most common error in priority need decisions is the failure to apply the vulnerability test correctly. Following Hotak v London Borough of Southwark [2015], vulnerability is assessed by comparing the applicant with an "ordinary person" made homeless — not with the general population. Where the applicant has a medical condition, disability, mental health issue, or other vulnerability that makes them significantly more vulnerable than the ordinary person without a home, they should be found in priority need. A solicitor reviews the s.184 decision letter, identifies the legal errors in the vulnerability assessment, and prepares the s.202 review submissions — and if the review is also negative, appeals to the County Court under s.204.

No — a care package is based on the Care Act 2014 needs assessment and care and support plan. The local authority cannot lawfully reduce a care package without carrying out a formal reassessment of needs (s.27 — review of care and support plan) and a new financial assessment. A reduction in care driven purely by budget constraints — without proper reassessment of whether the person's needs have changed — is unlawful. The Blanchard and KM lines of cases establish that the personal budget must be sufficient to meet the eligible needs identified in the needs assessment. A solicitor challenges unlawful care reductions by: representations to the LA's complaints procedure; LGO complaint; and JR — including urgent interim relief if the reduction causes immediate harm.

Yes — a third party (including a neighbouring property owner, a local residents' group, or an NGO) can challenge an LPA's grant of planning permission by judicial review within 6 weeks of the decision. The third party must have sufficient interest (standing) — a neighbouring property owner is almost always found to have standing. Common grounds: the LPA failed to follow its own development plan (TCPA 1990 s.38(6)); the EIA was inadequate; the LPA failed to have regard to material planning considerations; or the decision was made in breach of natural justice (for example, a councillor had a financial interest in the application). A solicitor advises on the grounds for a third-party planning JR and manages the Planning Court proceedings within the 6-week deadline.

The LGSCO (Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman) investigates complaints of maladministration and service failure by councils. It can recommend: financial compensation for the injustice suffered; service improvements; and apologies. LGSCO investigations typically take 6–18 months from acceptance of the complaint. Remedies are recommendations, not orders — but councils almost always comply (non-compliance is itself reported publicly and creates significant reputational risk). The LGSCO is most effective for systemic failures (delays, poor communication, failure to follow procedures) rather than substantive legal errors (which are better challenged by JR). A solicitor advises on whether the LGO complaint route is appropriate and prepares the submission to maximise prospects.

Time limits vary by challenge route and decision type: homelessness s.202 review — 21 days from the original decision letter; s.204 County Court appeal — 21 days from the s.202 review letter; planning JR — 6 weeks from the planning decision; general council JR — 3 months from the decision; licensing Magistrates' Court appeal — 21 days from the decision; LGO complaint — 12 months from becoming aware of the problem (after using the council's complaints procedure). All these deadlines are strict — particularly the homelessness and licensing routes. A solicitor should be instructed immediately on receiving the council's decision to ensure the appropriate route is identified and the time limit protected.