In the Judicial Review R (SARCP) v Stoke-on-Trent City Council [2025] EWHC 18 (Admin), the Administrative Court ruled that Stoke-on-Trent Council’s decision to increase the annual indexation fees for residential care placements by only 1.4%, the contractual minimum, was unlawful. The successful claimant was represented by Philip Rule KC from No 5 Chambers instructed by Liam Fitzgerald from Anthony Collins.

The court ruled that this decision had 'effectively ignored' critical relevant factors such as 'the actual costs of care',[…]inflation and National Living Wage increases, the impact of squeezing costs on standards and comparable authorities adopting higher increases'. The court rejected the council’s decision and required it to be retaken within 28 days. 

The court ruled the decision to be unlawful for reasons including:

• The council did not adequately consider the results of the consultation before making its decision;
• The council failed to fulfil its statutory duties under the Care Act 2014 and did not follow statutory guidance under s78 of the Act, not setting the fee uplift by taking into proper consideration the actual costs of care or inflationary pressures;
• The council breached the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 by not considering the potential discriminatory impact on elderly or disabled care home residents.

The judgment serves as a reminder to local authorities of their public law duties under the Care Act 2014, including ensuring a sustainable care market, promoting quality care, supporting workforce development, and safeguarding residents' well-being. It stresses that local authorities must set fees that allow providers to meet these goals, ensuring that providers can comply with quality standards and avoid compromising care due to budgetary issues. 

This ruling highlights that, despite increasing financial pressures, local authorities must make fee-setting decisions in line with public law principles and consider the true costs of care and the interests of residents. This ruling will likely be welcome to many care providers that are struggling to manage rising costs due to inflation and National Living Wage increases, while trying to fulfil the needs of vulnerable adults. Providers should bear this in mind when negotiating contracts with local authorities, or when considering challenging a local authority when an inadequate fee uplift is proposed.  

You can read our more detailed ebriefing on the judgment here, or the judgment itself here. 

At Anthony Collins, we are proud to support care providers in their dedication to delivering high-quality care for vulnerable adults, and in ensuring that they are properly funded for the work they do. 

For advice on challenging care fees, please contact me.