The approach to the question of “ordinary residence” under the Mental Health Act 1983 is different from that under National Assistance Act 1948/Care Act 2014. So held by Linden J in R (Worcestershire County Council) v SoS (2021) EWHC 682 (Admin). LA 1 provided after-care services for a person discharged from hospital after being detained there under Section 3 of the 1983 Act. LA 1 placed the person in a care home in the area of LA 2. Then that person was detained again. When they were discharged again after the second period of detention, was it LA 1 or LA 2 who was responsible for the second period of after-care? Answer: LA 2. Reason: for the purposes of Section 117 (3) of the 1983 Act they were “ordinarily resident” in LA 2’s area “immediately before” the second period of detention.
Subscribe
Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We'll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (54)
- Council Tax and Rates (73)
- Decision making and Contracts (260)
- Elections and Bylaws (32)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (117)
- General (17)
- Housing (143)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (104)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (212)
- Land, Goods and Services (72)
- Local Authority Powers (73)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (150)
- Social Care (73)
- Standards (22)
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024