High Court allows vulnerable residents to seek a judicial review against Brent Council
Brent Mencap are backing the residents' legal challenge - Credit: Archant
Mary Archer, Charles Meehan and Michael Waterman claim town hall bosses failed to consult them about changes to their care
Three vulnerable residents have been given permission to seek a judicial review against a decision by Brent Council to switch the providers of their care.
Mary Archer, Charles Meehan and Michael Waterman, who all have learning difficulties, lodged legal action against the council claiming they had not been consulted about the changes.
They also claim the hours of care provided by the new contractors, a housing association, would be cut resulting in a reduction in the quality of the support.
Today at the High Court, Lady Justice Carr said that the case should be allowed to go to a full judicial review.
The service was previously offered by Brent Mencap who said the changes were made despite no consultation with the affected residents.
Ann O’Neill, executive director of the charity in High Road, Willesden, said: “The problem in Brent will gradually become visible as people hit a crisis point after losing their support.”
Most Read
- 1 'Strictest' headteacher to be documentary subject
- 2 'Extremely dangerous' men convicted after girl kidnapped and raped
- 3 Jailed: North London members of Essex drugs supply network
- 4 Call for investment in 'joke' Harlesden park
- 5 The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee flypast: Where, and when, the planes will fly over north and east London
- 6 Police officer sacked after she 'failed' woman murdered by husband
- 7 Second man charged with fatal stabbing of Emmanuel Odunlami
- 8 Labour accused of 'power grab' move over committee appointments
- 9 Can you answer these 10 GCSE questions designed for 16-year-olds?
- 10 Jailed: 7 north London offenders put behind bars in April
A spokesman for Brent Council said any changes to the level of support offered was made after a review of an individual.
He added: “The council’s position is that the level of support provided to an individual is determined by their assessed needs, and any reduction to the level of support would only take place if there was a reduction in the assessed need. “
