AC-2025-LON-001008 - [2025] EWHC 2568 (Admin)

The claimant has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Condition, social anxiety disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, oppositional defiance disorder and, more recently, premenstrual dysphoric disorder. A family tragedy in July 2023, when one of her brothers was killed and the other seriously injured in a road traffic accident, had a further and substantially adverse effect on her mental and emotional wellbeing.

The defendant has maintained an Education, Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”) for the claimant since 2018. A social care package for the claimant was put in place in 2019, comprising both social care from the CSC and educational provision from the defendant’s Special Educational Needs (“SEN”) department. Immediately prior to July 2023 she was receiving 23 hours of social care support each week from a carer called Millie Hughes. The cost of this social care was met by direct payments from the defendant pursuant to section 17A of the Children Act 1989. In the aftermath of the tragedy in July 2023, the claimant’s mother requested that the social care package be increased to 60 hours each week. The defendant did not agree to this, but it did increase the social care package to 30 hours each week and commit to carrying out a further Child and Family Assessment (“CFA”) to consider the matter further.

The CFA was completed on 12 January 2024 by Tashena Wallace, a social worker employed by the defendant. It did not agree the request for 60 hours of social care each week, but it confirmed that the existing 30 hours would continue. In the section headed, “Analysis of risk and future danger”, Ms Wallace stated:

“The claimant is a 14 year old young person with complex needs which makes her vulnerable to be being exposed to lot more elements of peer pressure which includes risk taking behaviours etc. It is felt that a robust CIN [Children in Need] plan is essential to mitigate any further risks that could escalate and trigger a mental health crisis.

The claimant has complex mental health difficulties; however, as indicated in this assessment, she is a well versed and intelligent young individual capable of making reasoned decisions. Consequently, she does not fall under the classification of being profoundly or severely disabled, which is a prerequisite for receiving services from Lambeth CWD team… As such, upon agreement on appropriate care hours, it is my view that the case should be transferred to the Children and Family team for ongoing management and support.”

The mention of the Lambeth CWD team was a reference to the Children With Disabilities team, which is a section within the CSC. (It has since been renamed the 0-25 Disabilities team.) The mention of the Children and Family team was a reference to the Family Support and Child Protection(“FSCP”) team, which is another section within the CSC. There is a third section within the CSC, called the Short Breaks team, which is concerned with the provision of respite for carers.

Ms Wallace’s Manager, Jennifer Wilson, agreed with her recommendation. In the Manager Comments at the end of the CFA she stated:

“This is a holistic assessment [t]hat provided clear details of the claimant’s current needs an[d] subsequent need for support.

It is evident that the claimant has some complexities to her emotional presentations however these are not currently assessed to be severe or profound it would be reasonable for this case to be transferred to the appropriate service where she can continue to receive support.

I note that the claimant’s voice is clear in this assessment as she has been able to contribute her wishes and feelings throughout. I acknowledge the parent request for additional hours however have to be mindful that this takes away from the parenting capacity which is not being questioned as parent is proactive in ensuring the claimant’s needs are met but effective care planning. Given that the claimant has said she spend much of her time resting therefore I would question the need for an increase.

SW will continue to explore current support to ensure this is is [sic] being used in the most effective way however given that we are transferring the case to the most appropriate service this can be revisited.”

The conclusion, accordingly, was that the claimant’s disability did not merit the involvement of the CWD team, that she would be referred to the FSCP team, and that she would continue to receive 30 hours (but not the requested 60 hours) of social care each week. Accordingly, in February 2024 the social worker confirmed the increase of the social care direct payment package, backdated to August 2023, with the body that administered the direct payments for the defendant.

The current version of the claimant’s EHCP was finalised on 12 February 2024. It was there recorded: “Social care provides an ongoing package of support of 30 hours support via Direct payments.” (I should mention that there was an EHCP review in December 2024, but the defendant has not published the EHCP and does not intend to do so until these proceedings have been concluded.)

The events of the following months are conveniently taken from the witness statement of Jennifer Heritage, who is a service manager in the CSC and was the responsible service manager for the claimant between April and October 2024. She states:

“6.

A child in need (‘CIN’) review meeting was held on 12 March 2024. During that meeting, the claimant’s mother and the professional network were advised that following re-assessment the claimant no longer met the criteria for the CWD service and that her CIN plan would be transferring to the Family Support and Child Protection (‘FSCP’) service. Of particular note is the manager’s comment entered by Ms Jennifer Wilson, which states: ‘Having noted the ongoing issues around the assessment and support for the claimant, it is evident she requires ongoing management of her CIN plan to ensure her needs are managed - we have determine[d] that the claimant does not have a disability that is set out in the CWD eligibility criteria and have requested a transfer of the claimant’s case management to the FSCP team for a more targeted approach. The claimant herself has refused to engage with the current services and package of support is not being utilized which is in an indication of required need.’

7.

It is evident from that statement that concerns were being raised with the family as to whether or not the current social care package was appropriate as the claimant was not using the funds on offer. This suggests that during this period her level of need had decreased as she was not utilising the external support on offer.

8.

The FSCP service supports children who are deemed to be suffering from or at risk of serious harm. This can be via a child protection plan or via a CIN plan. Specifically, a CIN plan supports a child who is considered to be in need of support.

9.

The case was subsequently transferred to Brett Parsley, a social worker within the FSCP service on 11 April 2024. Following transfer, Mr Parsley undertook an initial home visit to the family on 25 April 2024. During that visit he met briefly with the claimant and with the claimant’s mother. As part of his visit, Mr Parsley explained his role to [the claimant’s mother], including the difference between the FSCP service and the CWD service. He advised the claimant’s mother that he had read the background to the case and attended a professionals meeting in respect of the claimant.

10.

Mr Parsley shared with the claimant’s mother the following, as recorded in our records: ‘I explained to mum that from what I can see she is meeting the claimant’s needs, and in my view does not need a social worker, because [the claimant] has all the support she needs from CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services], and they are supporting with education. Mum said that she understood, and did not fully understand why a CIN plan was required. But she was willing to engage because it could help with school and funding. I said that we have no influence on funding or school acceptance. I explained there would have been support we could have given; however mum has been more then [sic] capable to arrange this and has done so already.’

11.

Mr Parsley goes on to record: ‘I said that I am not saying that we will step away at this point, I just wanted to explore if the children with disabilities team may be more appropriate. Mum said she understood and did not want to take a social worker away from a family who needed my type of social worker, I said this does not mean [the claimant] is any less important, but it’s about being with the most appropriate team, mum understood.’

12.

In my view based on the initial home visit, it is evident from the outset that Mr Parsley not only set out that [the claimant] did not meet the remit of involvement from the FSCP team, but that as a service we are also not responsible for matters pertaining to funding or the provision of education. The claimant appeared to recognise and acknowledge this based on what is recorded.

13.

During a home visit conducted on 18 July 2024, Mr Parsley again revisited the proposal for case closure, explaining what areas had been explored prior to reaching this decision. It is recorded as follows: ‘I then said that my manager had a conversation/meeting with the previous manager from the Children with Disabilities Team, and it was clear that they did not have a role, and that the claimant’s disability does not warrant having a social worker in their team. Mum said that she has a disability and she is not in education, so she should have a social worker. I explained that it does not work that way, she has to need one. I then explained that my manager and I agree that the claimant does not require a social worker, and that I do not have a role. I explained that the fact that mum messaged to say she would like visits to be every 8 weeks, because 3-4 weeks was too often, and the fact that I have not done anything or had a role since I took over the case, signifies that the claimant does not require my support. Mum said that was fine, but could I write a letter explaining, and then she will send to her solicitor.’”

Mr Parsley no longer works for the defendant. Ms Heritage’s evidence is taken largely from the file notes. What appears from the notes, therefore, is that, after the claimant was transferred from the CWD team to the FSCP team, the FSCP team formed the view that she did not in fact fall within its remit. Mr Parsley wondered whether the claimant would better be dealt with by the CWD team, but that team again made clear that it did not have a role.

A Child in Need review meeting was held on 30 August 2024, attended by the claimant’s mother and by one education officer and one CIN reviewing officer. In the section of the report headed, “Analysis of risk and future danger”, the social worker wrote:

“I am still of the view that FSCP social work team is not the right team for the claimant, and that the Children with Disabilities Team is also not the team who will support her. It was agreed that the team manager would arrange a consultation with the short breaks team.”

The Manager’s Comment at the foot of the review updated the position:

“The care package of direct payments is supporting the family and the claimant has a good relationship with PA. The claimant gets 30 hours per week from social care and 30 hours from SEN. The meeting was clear that there was no role for FSCP and only outdoing [outstanding?] query was to explore if meets criteria for short breaks. This was discussed on 09/09/2024 - not meet threshold and case to close.”

The Manager’s Comment on the Child in Need review shows that the Short Breaks team decided that the claimant did not meet the threshold criteria for respite provision. There are two case notes from 9 September 2024 on the defendant’s file, both of them made by Chipo Mazambani, an FSCP team manager, with the heading “Discussion held – appears not to meet threshold of shortbreaks”. Taking the sequence of the case notes as I believe them to be, the first one reads as follows:

“I had a discussion with Daviene Trotman and she reported that short breaks are for young people who have profound and complex needs and require additional support in the community to complete day to day skills of daily living

When I relayed to social worker Brett, he was agreeable that the claimant does not meet the criteria. He will inform mother and already has support partly funded by herself and partly by”.

The text breaks off abruptly; I believe the document in the hearing bundle to contain all there is. It seems that Ms Mazambani entered an edited version of the same note a couple of minutes later (oddities of spacing, not replicated here, are identical in both versions); the revised version reads:

“I had a discussion with Daviene Trotman and she reported that short breaks are for young people who have profound and complex needs and require additional support in the community to complete day to day skills of daily living

When I relayed to social worker Brett, he was agreeable that the claimant does not meet the criteria. He will inform mother and case will close as only work outstanding”.

In these proceedings the defendant has referred to the decision on 9 September 2024 as the initial decision to terminate direct payments. Although that characterisation has been criticised, it seems to me to be substantially correct. But it is necessary to understand the sequential way it came about. A case note on the defendant’s file for 30 August 2024, headed “Closing CIN review took place”, records: “All agreed FSCP social worker did not have a role, agreed closed to FSCP.” The CWD team had already ruled out its own involvement. On 9 September 2024 the Short Breaks team said that the claimant was not within its remit. Therefore each of the three parts of the defendant’s CSC—and in his oral submissions Mr Harrop-Griffiths confirmed and relied upon the fact that the three parts comprise the entirety of the CSC—had decided that the claimant did not qualify for its specialist services. Ms Mazambani’s record that the “case will close” clearly was intended to mean that all social care provision (as distinct from SEN provision) by the defendant would cease.

On 18 September 2024 Mr Parsley sent an internal email, asking the CSC to send a closure letter to the family. The subject line of the email was “LBL Close to Department (CYPS [Children and Young People’s Services] Only)” and then the claimant’s name. The file records that the letter was sent that afternoon. The file also shows that the following morning a service manager with responsibility for payments sent an internal email to Ms Mazambani: “I note that the claimant’s case is being closed. There remains open a direct payments package for 30 hrs per week. Please confirm if this needs to be closed and the end date.” Ms Mazambani replied: “I have had a discussion with Manyara [Walker] and the fact that there is no longer CSC involvement, there is no one to monitor the package. The family does not meet threshold for FSCP and CWD. The closing date is effective 19/09/2024.”

On 18 September 2024 Mr Parsley sent an email to the claimant’s mother, clearly intending to give her an account and explanation of developments. The email said:

“My manager has met with the short breaks team, and it was determined that the claimant does not meet the threshold, because they offer support to young people who have profound complex needs, to access the community and the claimant already has this support with the 30 hours support worker that the LA already pays for, and that you top up yourself. Unfortunately, this is a service that is not able to provide additional support for the claimant. As it stands the claimant will be closed to our service and a letter will be sent to you.”

The claimant’s mother quite reasonably understood this to mean that it was only support from the FSCP team that was to end and no support would be given by the Short Breaks team, but that the 30 hours of social care would continue. The letter dated 18 September 2024, which she would have received after the email, began: “This is to inform you that the claimant’s case has now been closed to Lambeth Children Services.” The claimant’s mother will, I think, have understood those words in accordance with the understanding she had taken from the previous email.

However, by email on 18 October 2024 Mr Adam Yarnold, the defendant’s SEN lead, wrote to the claimant’s MP concerning both SEN and social care provision. Regarding the latter, he said:

“In regard to your inquiry about the claimant’s care package; [the claimant] does no longer meets [sic] the threshold for involvement from Lambeth Social Care’s Children with Disabilities Team. They have closed the case and the 30 hours care package she was receiving has now ended. This has also been communicated to the claimant’s mother.”

In fact, it had not been communicated to the claimant’s mother—at least, not in terms that were clear in their meaning. The claimant’s mother learned of the decision to end the care package when the MP forwarded Mr Yarnold’s email to her. In her first witness statement in these proceedings, the claimant’s mother states:

“On 18 October 2024, Mr Yarnold, who is in the SEN team, stated that the 30-hour personal budget for care had been ceased. As detailed above, this had never been discussed with me and was never suggested by any of the social workers who assessed the claimant. Mr Yarnold may have simply misunderstood which personal budget was being ceased, and the Defendant is now trying to retrospectively justify that mistake.”

Ms Heritage says that she does not know why Mr Parsley wrote in the terms he did on 18 September 2024, and that the defendant acknowledges that the claimant’s mother was not aware of the full implications of the decision to close the case to CSC, namely that the 30-hours care package would cease. Even so, the file notes show that the claimant’s mother’s surmise that Mr Yarnold had misunderstood the position is incorrect. The decision to close the case meant just that, and it included the termination of the direct payments. It seems to me, however, to be most likely that Mr Parsley wrote in the terms he did because he did not appreciate that the direct payments were to be ended.

The claimant’s mother instructed solicitors and pre-action correspondence ensued. On 13 February 2025 the defendant’s Legal & Governance department wrote by email to the claimant’s solicitors (I set out only the answers to the claimant’s demands):

“1.

Given the old package is closed, we would not be able to simply re-instate it without a new assessment of the current needs, however we will endeavour to expedite the process of assessment.

2.

Lambeth’s children’s services have agreed to a new assessment under s. 17.

3.

Lambeth will look into a carers assessment as part of the claimant’s new assessment.”

On 18 February 2025 Deborah Sylvestre, the social worker carrying out the new CFA, met with the claimant. On 11 March 2025 Ms Sylvestre emailed all interested parties as follows:

“Please be advised the Lambeth Children’s Services assessment has been completed in respect of the above named child ...

The assessment recommendation is for Children With Disabilities services involvement – with reinstatement of Direct Payments and Short Breaks service for the claimant and the claimant’s mother.

A Child In Need meeting is to be held on Tuesday 18.03.24 at 3pm. An invitation will be sent to you via separate email.”

However, the CFA recorded that, also on 11 March 2025:

“… the Social Worker had a discussion with CWD Team Manager, Jennifer Wilson and Kerry Dunn. They are of the view that given the claimant’s circumstances are mainly in respect of her diagnoses and mental health - which is acknowledged as impacting her behaviour and choices at times - her condition does not meet the severe or complex eligibility criteria of the CWD Levels of Need currently. Consideration is to be made of reinstatement of the short breaks local offer.”

Later that week Ms Sylvestre left the defendant’s employment; she therefore did not complete the CFA, and the Child In Need meeting was cancelled. On 18 March 2025 Ms Jodie-Ann Dunbar, the Team Manager of the defendant’s Child Assessment Team, wrote to the claimant’s mother by email:

“The assessment is being finalise[d] and will be made available to you by Friday. Please be advise[d] that any prior outcome shared by Deborah was not agreed/finalise[d] by senior management.”

The CFA dated 20 March 2025 is the decision being challenged in these proceedings. It recorded the observations and opinions of Ms Sylvestre as the conducting social worker. These included the following:

“The claimant continues to struggle with complex mental health needs, despite input from CAMHS / DBT sessions, there is a history of the claimant’s suicide attempts, self-harm and absconding behaviours.”

“The claimant not wanting to go to sleep, get up, attend to her hygiene, go to tutoring sessions.”

“The claimant has several diagnoses (Autism Spectrum, Social Anxiety Disorder, Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder and Oppositional Defiance Disorder) which affect her day to day functioning, thinking and behaviour. Many of her behaviours have been identified as concerning and include self-harm, suicide attempts, verbal and physical aggression (especially towards family members). The claimant’s mother’s own mental and physical health have been impacted by caring for the claimant when she does not want to attend tuition or other specialist services in place to provide support for her. The claimant was previously in receipt of CIN support under s17 of the Children Act 1989, first from CWD and later on from FSCP. She was then closed to FSCP in September 2024 following a period of Child in Need planning.”

“The Social Worker has had sight of the most up to date information from the professionals involved with the claimant and noted that she has social and mental health needs for which support can be offered via the SEND local offer, parenting support and community universal services. It is considered that the SEND local offer will be able to provide support and some form of respite to the family. We note that there were a number of positives from the previous FSCP involvement and detailed in the 2024 EHCP and the current Child and Family Assessment has not identified a change of circumstances for the claimant since then. There are currently no ongoing safeguarding concerns or support needs which require a CIN plan from the Local Authority and ongoing intervention from a social worker.”

“The Social Worker, parents, Lionheart tuition and DBT service are worried that without the appropriate level of support for the claimant, she will fail to make positive progress (mental health, health, education, life skills, socialisation etc) currently and in future.”

“The Social Worker recommends the family access the SEND local offer given the claimant’s support needs. SEN service to meet with the claimant and the claimant’s mother to discuss safe, alternative education options.”

It will be noted that the social worker’s recommendation in the CFA did not reflect what she had written in her email to the claimant’s mother on 11 March 2025. The CFA did not contain anything along the lines of what was contained in the email.

The Manager’s (Ms Dunbar’s) Comments in the CFA of 20 March 2025 were as follows:

“This assessment was completed following Lambeth being notified of a judicial review pre-action protocol in respect of Lambeth Council ending the claimant’s social care/direct payment package on 18.10.24. The claimant’s mother is requesting for the claimant’s support to be reinstated due to financial burden and impact on the claimant and their family overall. An updated child and family assessment is required before this is decided. An assessment was completed January 2024 due to the claimant’s behaviour escalating absconding and self-harming, on one occasion the claimant attempt[ed] to use a ligature in a bathroom at her then placement. The claimant was then made subject to CIN plan with a social care package provided by the (CWD) Team. In the January 2024 assessment, the claimant’s social care needs were deemed to have changed, and she longer met the threshold for the CWD Team, because: ‘she does not fall under the classification of being profoundly or severely disabled, which is a prerequisite for receiving services from Lambeth CWD team.’

The claimant has a number of needs in relation to her diagnoses, social and mental health needs for which she can access support from the SEND local offer, parenting support and community universal services. This assessment has found no safeguarding concerns, therefore a child in need plan is not warranted.”

The CFA was provided to the claimant’s mother on 21 March 2025. On the previous day Ms Dunbar had written to the claimant’s mother by email:

“We note that there were a number of positives from the previous FSCP involvement and detailed in the 2024 EHCP and the current Child and Family Assessment has not identified a change of circumstances for the claimant since then. There are currently no ongoing safeguarding concerns or support needs which require a CIN plan from the Local Authority and ongoing intervention from a social worker. Please be advised [the claimant and her brother] are now closed to Lambeth CSC, I have sent a copy of the assessment to you by post along with information on how to access the SEND local offer.”

This wording is not entirely clear, because the 2024 EHCP referred to the 30-hours package for social care that was approved by the CFA in January 2024. However, I think that what Ms Dunbar had in mind was that there was no change from the earlier view that no involvement of a social worker or of the FSCP team was required, and there was no need for a CIN plan.

On 25 March 2025 solicitors instructed by the claimant’s mother sent a further pre-action protocol letter. So far as relevant to these proceedings, the letter alleged that the defendant was failing to meet the claimant’s identified social care needs in breach of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It complained that, although Ms Sylvestre’s findings were set out in the report, her recommendations had been omitted. On this point, the letter concluded:

“To date, the Local Authority has provided no justification as to why it has departed from Ms Sylvestre’s view, nor why her recommendations were not specifically detailed within her report. Ms Sylvestre is a qualified social worker with over 12 years’ experience and it is unclear why the Local Authority took the trouble of arranging a social care assessment if it intended to completely disregard its findings. This is quite clearly an irrational decision, and clearly in breach of the Local Authority’s duties towards the claimant.”

On 31 March 2025 the defendant responded:

“We apologise that the email from Ms Sylvestre dated 11 March 2025 stipulated a recommendation/outcome that was not as indicated by Ms Dunbar’s email dated 21 March 2025. Lambeth had not departed from Ms Sylvestre’s views, rather there was a subsequent internal discussion with social care managers, taking account all factors current and historic respect the claimant, that came to a final analysis and recommendations. …

It is not agreed that we have failed to meet the claimant’s social care needs, either historically or by way of the assessment referred to above. As outlined in social care’s responses to date, we submit that social care have applied all legislation, national guidance and internal policies correctly when assessing and putting in services for the claimant, and subsequently in decisions to end services following reviews.”

The defendant then undertook a further CFA, which was provided to the claimant’s mother on 23 June 2025, before the grant of permission in this case. The document records that a visit to the claimant and her mother was made by a social worker, Jade Jivanda, and also the 0-25 disabilities social worker. It said: “A meeting was also held on the 27th May with 0-25 disabilities team managers and they remain of the view that the claimant does not meet with criteria for the 0-25 disabilities service. This is because they think her needs are largely linked to her mental health and not her disability. They remain of the opinion that the claimant’s needs do not meet the severe/ complex threshold in 3 or more of the assessment criteria areas.” The social worker’s views appear in, for example, the following passage:

“In conjunction with 0-25 disabilities team, we have assessed that the claimant does not meet the 0-25 disabilities threshold criteria. She has been assessed as moderate in most areas, which would not come under their remit. There are various options available to the family under the moderate threshold with accessing universal services as previously identified in the March assessment. The claimant’s needs have not changed since March, her main areas of support are needed for her social and mental health needs of which support can be access via the SEND local offer, such as universal community services and parenting support. Whilst the claimant has not started her psychotherapy yet, she remains under CAMHS and this work is due to begin.

It is understood that this is not the support that the claimant’s mother thinks the claimant needs and whilst support workers can be provided to families in the FSCP team, these are provided in times of crisis for short periods of time, not over prolonged periods. The claimant’s mother does not understand why the direct payments stopped and this should clearly be explained to her by the Local Authority. …

The other main obstacle appears to be that the claimant is not in full-time education, this impacts on the claimant’s learning, but also the claimant’s mother’s work schedule as the claimant is only able to access half days. …

At this stage there are no current significant safeguarding needs for the children which would require on going Children’s services intervention. Therefore I am recommending the assessment closes with no further action.”

The Manager’s Comments (again, from Ms Dunbar) concluded as follows:

“In the January 2024 assessment, the claimant’s social care needs were deemed to have changed, and she [no] longer met the threshold for the 0-25 disabilities Team, because: ‘she does not fall under the classification of being profoundly or severely disabled, which is a prerequisite for receiving services from Lambeth 0-25 disabilities team.’ In March 2025 0-25 disabilities team were of the view the claimant’s needs were assessed as mild to moderate and this remains the case for the reviewed assessment of her needs now. The claimant has several needs in relation to her diagnoses, social and mental health needs for which she can access support from the SEND local offer such as parenting support and community universal services outlined in this assessment. This assessment has found no current safeguarding concerns, therefore a child in need plan is not warranted at this time and the family will close to Lambeth CSC. If CSC is expected to provide any further updated assessment, I would request that the claimant’s updated ECHP plan is made available for consideration.”