Sample Letters To Care

Sample letters for clients and carers

 

read carefully before choosing which one to send.

A person’s service has just been cut without any re-assessment at all…

A person has been re-assessed without family involvement, despite clearly lacking capacity to cope with a social services re-assessment, on their own…

A person’s service or budget has been cut after a re-assessment, because their needs have been re-worded (even though they have not actually changed)

A person’s service or budget has been cut after re-assessment on the basis of an assertion of changed needs, which is disputed on the facts

A person’s service or budget has been cut after re-assessment, although no-one is asserting that the needs have actually changed

 

ie the cut is about meeting unchanged needs in a different supposedly OK way.but

The cut is radical, arbitrary and unexplained

The cut is based on a move that goes to the very heart of the person’s lifestyle

The cut is based on ignoring something really significant for the person, like religious dietary rules

A person’s service is cut by the provider, because of commercial necessity, after pressure from the council

 

without any matching change in the written care plan and the client is worried about what that means because the service feels different.

A person’s Personal Budget has been set by reference to an indicative RAS with no process offered for challenging it or getting it raised.

A person is denied a choice of residential care home based on a ridiculously low asserted ‘usual rate’ that the council believes it should be able to get the care for

 

whether or not the council asks for a top-up.

A direct payment is capped by reference to cost of residential care or the cost to the COUNCIL of buying care, if the person was not getting a direct payment.  

A direct payment is refused to someone eligible without any reason.

A direct payment award refuses permission to employ a cohabitee or close relative.

A direct payment is stopped or reclaimed without reasons or in a situation where no fair advance notice of ‘rules’ was given.

The spending of a Direct Payment is refused on a ‘you can’t use it for that’ scenario

 

 


Letters for providers or clients and carers

The Commissioner has apparently said the Provider must continue to honour the care plan but for less money, or else the client will be moved.

The Commissioner has demanded that non-access to ILF for new people in a supported living setting be absorbed by the Provider.

The Commissioner has refused to pay more to a provider when one tenant out of several has left, taking their budget with them, which contributed to shared care.

The Commissioner has purported to cut the fee after an annual review which gives the Commissioner the power to decide the fee, but the Provider says that the review has not been fairly conducted [Tressa. This one needs more specificity].


 

1.

A person’s service has just been cut without any re-assessment at all…

 

Dear [the statutory Monitoring Officer’s name, usually the head of the legal department

 

always ring to get their name if you cant find it on google]


Concern about the legality of the council’s decision regarding [client’s name and the issue]

I am writing to you, in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, responsible for the corporate governance of this council, with a request that you consider the exercise of your duty under s5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. 

[…It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission … by any person holding any office or employment under the authority … has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to

 

(a) a contravention of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.


My interest

[Next, state who you are, eg the client in person, if you are generally capacitated, or their informal representative, if not, (for which wording, see below) or their formal representative if you have any lawful welfare-related decision-making status such as guardianship or any Scots welfare decision making authority.]

[If the person is lacking capacity:]

I am your client’s [describe the relationship] and have a legitimate interest in [his/her] well-being. It is my reasonable view that my [friend/relative] lacks capacity to make [his/her] own referral to you. As I am entitled to be consulted in relation to the best interests care planning that must be done for my [friend/relative], under the Scots Adults with Incapacity law, I am raising this referral to you on behalf of the person, and in pursuit of their best interests.

Alleged Breach

The breach of the law that I believe to be occurring or likely to occur is that [client’s name] has been re-assessed for adults’ social care services without compliance with the law and guidance applicable to that function, making the re-assessment procedurally improper, ultra vires, and potentially of no effect.

The authority that requires there to be ongoing provision of services set out in the person’s care plan is the judicial review decision in the Gloucestershire case from 1997

 

in which it was held that given the social care duty under the CSDPA 1970 is a duty, and not a discretion, assessment of eligibility in the terms of that statute triggers the duty and the duty subsists unless or until the client is reassessed lawfully and rationally (albeit against a higher test of eligibility, potentially, and even if that local threshold has by then been re-set with regard to a shortage of resources).

Conclusion

You may be assisted in an overview of the state of community care law on identical legislation in England by referring to the paper from a Scots Advocate, Murray Stable, in 2012.

 

Murray Stable link.

I look forward to your confirmation that you will be preparing a report to the authority with respect to the decision and the need to rectify the position.  

If the matter can be properly reconsidered in light of the statutory wording and public law rules about the full exercise of discretion, with reasons for any continuing disagreement articulated, that would be an alternative.

If neither course appeals, I look forward to your written reasons why it does not appear to you that the circumstances have given rise and/or are likely to give rise to a breach of the law, so that I may take further legal advice.

Yours sincerely, [etc etc.]

 

2.

A person has been re-assessed but without family or advocate involvement, despite clearly lacking capacity to cope with a re-assessment on their own  

Dear [the statutory monitoring officer’s name, usually the head of the legal department

 

always ring to get their name]


Concern about the legality of the council’s decision regarding [client’s name and the issue]

I am writing to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, responsible for the corporate governance of this council, with a request that you consider the exercise of your duty under s5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. 

[…It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission … by any person holding any office or employment under the authority … has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to

 

(a) a contravention of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment …to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.

My interest

[Next, state who you are, eg the client in person, if you are generally capacitated, or their informal representative, if not, (for which wording, see below) or their formal representative if you have any lawful welfare-related decision-making status such as guardianship or any Scots welfare decision making authority.]

[If the person is lacking capacity:]

I am your client’s [describe the relationship] and have a legitimate interest in [his/her] well-being. It is my reasonable view that my [friend/relative] lacks capacity to make [his/her] own referral to you. As I am entitled to be consulted in relation to the best interests care planning that must be done for my [friend/relative], under the Scots Adults with Incapacity law, I am raising this referral to you on behalf of the person, and in pursuit of their best interests.

Alleged Breach

The breach of the law that I believe to be occurring or likely to occur is that [client’s name] has been re-assessed for adults’ social care services without compliance with the law and guidance applicable to that function, making the re-assessment procedurally improper, ultra vires, and potentially of no effect. I have set out the statutory provisions demanding this level of procedural compliance supporting this assertion, and the case law that is determinative of the illegality issue is the Croydon case, [2011] EWHC 696 (Admin)

 

here is the link to that case - Croydon link.

 

 

[Add this, if the relative is an actual carer:] Further, the Assessment Directions of 2004 require that the contents of the care plan should so far as is possible be agreed with a carer, before the conclusion of the process, and no attempt has been made to agree the Care Plan with me.

Conclusion

You may be assisted in an overview of the state of community care law on identical legislation in England by referring to the paper from a Scots Advocate, Murray Stable, in 2012.

 

Murray Stable link.

I look forward to your confirmation that you will be preparing a report to the authority with respect to the decision and the need to rectify the position.  

If the matter can be properly reconsidered in light of the statutory wording and public law rules about the full exercise of discretion, with reasons for any continuing disagreement articulated, that would be an alternative.

If neither course appeals, I look forward to your written reasons why it does not appear to you that the circumstances have given rise and/or are likely to give rise to a breach of the law, so that I may take further legal advice.

Yours sincerely, [etc etc.]

 

 

 


3.

A person’s service has been cut on re-assessment, because the needs have been re-worded without any obvious actual change of circumstances

Dear [the statutory monitoring officer’s name, usually the head of the legal department

 

always ring to get their name]


Concern about the legality of the council’s decision regarding [client’s name and the issue]

I am writing to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, responsible for the corporate governance of this council, with a request that you consider the exercise of your duty under s5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

[…It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission … by any person holding any office or employment under the authority … has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to

 

(a) a contravention of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.


My interest

[Next, state who you are, eg the client in person, if you are generally capacitated, or their informal representative, if not, (for which wording, see below) or their formal representative if you have any lawful welfare-related decision-making status such as guardianship or any Scots welfare decision making authority.]

[If the person is lacking capacity:]

I am your client’s [describe the relationship] and have a legitimate interest in [his/her] well-being. It is my reasonable view that my [friend/relative] lacks capacity to make [his/her] own referral to you. As I am entitled to be consulted in relation to the best interests care planning that must be done for my [friend/relative], under the Scots Adults with Incapacity law, I am raising this referral to you on behalf of the person, and in pursuit of their best interests.

Alleged breach

The breach of the law that I believe to be occurring is that in the re-assessment process for [the client’s name] a member of the council’s staff has purported to cut the services [or funding] provided for the service user, on account of having altered the description given to the needs that had been previously identified during the assessment part of the process, and acknowledged as eligible.

I have taken advice and I appreciate that it is for the council to formulate the need, and to discharge the function of meeting eligible needs via a decision which need only be rational.

But in so doing

 

The decision-maker needs to follow guidance regarding assessment from central government (the revised FACS guidance from February 2010)

The decision-maker ought not to reformulate the needs simply so as to make a less generous response sound reasonable because this is treating assessment as service or budget driven, not needs led (the Bromley case is authority if any is needed for the proposition that budget cannot be the only consideration treated as relevant - [2004] EWHC 2108 (Admin) and here is the link:

 

Bromley Link

The decision-maker must abide by human rights, the Adults with Incapacity Act and Code and all other relevant domestic law at both the stage of assessing need and then deciding about its response.

It is a fundamental rule of law in Public Law that there must be reasons given for the perceived change in need

 

see the Killigrew case [1999] EWHC Admin 611 here is the link - Killigrew Link

 

In real-life terms, the presenting needs of my relative have not changed, and neither has the council’s FACS threshold, so I am at a loss to understand what the justification for the reformulation could be. This is not a case such as the McDonald case where the council reverted to a view that they had long taken about Ms McDonald’s needs, and from which they had only departed by way of temporary concession. Further, the Killigrew case clearly requires a rational evidence basis for changing the council’s view of needs, that takes into account all relevant considerations.  The reference to the McDonald case is [2011] UKSC 33 and here is the link -

 

McDonald Link

Conclusion

You may be assisted in an overview of the state of community care law on identical legislation in England by referring to the paper from a Scots Advocate, Murray Stable, in 2012.

 

Murray Stable link.

 

I look forward to your confirmation that you will be preparing a report to the authority with respect to the decision and the need to rectify the position.  

If the matter can be properly reconsidered in light of the statutory wording and public law rules about the full exercise of discretion, with reasons for any continuing disagreement articulated, that would be an alternative.

If neither course appeals, I look forward to your written reasons why it does not appear to you that the circumstances have given rise and/or are likely to give rise to a breach of the law, so that I may take further legal advice.

Yours sincerely, [etc etc.]

 

 

 

4.

A person’s service or budget has been cut after re-assessment on the basis of an assertion of changed needs, which assertion is disputed by the person or carer

 

Dear [the statutory monitoring officer’s name, usually the head of the legal department

 

always ring to get their name]


Concern about the legality of the council’s decision regarding [client’s name and the issue]

I am writing to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, responsible for the corporate governance of this council, with a request that you consider the exercise of your duty under s5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

[…It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission … by any person holding any office or employment under the authority … has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to

 

(a) a contravention of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.


My interest

[Next, state who you are, eg the client in person, if you are generally capacitated, or their informal representative, if not, (for which wording, see below) or their formal representative if you have any lawful welfare-related decision-making status such as guardianship or any Scots welfare decision making authority.]

[If the person is lacking capacity:]

I am your client’s [describe the relationship] and have a legitimate interest in [his/her] well-being. It is my reasonable view that my [friend/relative] lacks capacity to make [his/her] own referral to you. As I am entitled to be consulted in relation to the best interests care planning that must be done for my [friend/relative], under the Scots Adults with Incapacity law, I am raising this referral to you on behalf of the person, and in pursuit of their best interests.

Alleged Breach

The breach of the law that I believe to be occurring is that in the re-assessment process for [me/the client’s name] a member of the council’s staff has purported to cut the services [or funding] provided allocated, on account of having concluded that the previously assessed needs have changed.

I have read the paperwork that has been supplied, carefully, and have to inform the council that it is not accepted that the needs that have been assessed have changed at all, in the sense of lessening, permanently, or having been able to be regarded as resolved.

In real-life terms, [my / my friend/relative’s] presenting needs (dependencies) have not changed, and neither has the council’s FACS threshold, so I am at a loss to understand what the justification for the reduction in perceived needs could be.

I should stress that this is not merely disputed, but that it is contended that no reasonable authority could feasibly have concluded that the needs have changed, on the basis of the evidence, such that the decision is irrational in the Wednesbury sense in public law.

[Describe the perceived change in need, attacking the evidence if any was cited for it by the council. If none was given, say so, in strong terms, and cite any evidence that positively suggests that the need and dependency were the same or greater. Do a separate paragraph describing the consequences for you if you are the service user, or for the service user, if you are not.]

It will be seen that the contention that the needs have changed is arbitrary and unexplained. The decision is clearly indefensible by reference to the established principles of public and community care legislation and case law as described above. The purported change in the assessment of needs appears to be budget driven or service driven, which is contrary to government guidance (the Putting People First guidance from February 2010).

[If this is relevant to the argument: well managed needs?:]

It may be that the area of need that the care manager has focused on is now better managed than it was before. But these needs are being managed by paid-for support which I believe is essential to the [my/my friend/relative’s] stabilisation or re-ablement. If your professional staff feel otherwise, they would need, it is suggested, a period of trialling the impact of removing the service whilst remaining accountable for the risk that would then arise. It is a basic principle in health and social care functions that a perceived lessening in need based on this paid-for input does not mean that the need is not eligible for continuing funding.

It is also a fundamental principle in community care law that there must be rational evidence based reasons given for a perceived change in need

 

see the Killigrew case [1999] EWHC Admin 611 here is the link - Killigrew link.

 

Conclusion

You may be assisted in an overview of the state of community care law on identical legislation in England by referring to the paper from a Scots Advocate, Murray Stable, in 2012.

 

Murray Stable link.

I look forward to your confirmation that you will be preparing a report to the authority with respect to the decision and the need to rectify the position.  

If the matter can be properly reconsidered in light of the statutory wording and public law rules about the full exercise of discretion, with reasons for any continuing disagreement articulated, that would be an alternative.

If neither course appeals, I look forward to your written reasons why it does not appear to you that the circumstances have given rise and/or are likely to give rise to a breach of the law, so that I may take further legal advice.

Yours sincerely, [etc etc.]

 

 

 

A person’s service or budget has been cut after re-assessment, although no-one is asserting that the needs have changed

The cut is radical, arbitrary and unexplained

The cut is based on a move that goes to the very heart of the person’s lifestyle

The cut is based on ignoring something really significant for the person, like religious dietary rules

Dear [the statutory monitoring officer’s name, usually the head of the legal department

 

always ring to get their name]


Concern about the legality of the council’s decision regarding [client’s name and the issue]

I am writing to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, responsible for the corporate governance of this council, with a request that you consider the exercise of your duty under s5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 

[…It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission … by any person holding any office or employment under the authority … has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to

 

(a) a contravention of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.


My interest

[Next, state who you are, eg the client in person, if you are generally capacitated, or their informal representative, if not, (for which wording, see below) or their formal representative if you have any lawful welfare-related decision-making status such as guardianship or any Scots welfare decision making authority.]

[If the person is lacking capacity:]

I am your client’s [describe the relationship] and have a legitimate interest in [his/her] well-being. It is my reasonable view that my [friend/relative] lacks capacity to make [his/her] own referral to you. As I am entitled to be consulted in relation to the best interests care planning that must be done for my [friend/relative], under the Scots Adults with Incapacity law, I am raising this referral to you on behalf of the person, and in pursuit of their best interests.

Alleged Breach

The breach of the law that I believe to have occurred is that in re-assessment for community care services/funding for [me/the client’s name] a cut by way of the particular profile of services offered in response to meet the previously identified, eligible, assessed needs [or: the funding which has been offered in response, to meet the previously identified, eligible, assessed needs] has been made

 

without any change having been identified by the council in the assessed eligible needs which no reasonable authority properly directing itself could think justified, such that the decision is irrational in the Wednesbury sense, in public law terms.

[Describe the cut as well as you can. Do a separate paragraph describing the consequences for you if you are the service user, or for the service user, if you are not. Describe the attempts made or suggestions that have been made for filling the gap with services that might be otherwise available, explaining why they are not or are not suitable, given the client’s situation, physical, geographical, psychological or healthwise].

It will be seen that the cut is radical, arbitrary and unexplained. The decision is clearly indefensible by reference to the established principles of public and community care legislation and case law as follows:

[choose which elaborations from below, fit the situation]

The Birmingham ex p Killigrew case clearly required a rational evidence basis for changing the council’s view of needs, that takes into account all relevant considerations, and explains where the need that gave rise to the previous response has evaporated to.  The reference is [1999] EWHC Admin 611

 

and here is the link - Killigrew Link

The cut leaves out of account that [the thing in question or the service that is being cut…. ] is vital and really significant for [me/the service user, in the view of [name any of those who would wish to be heard in support]. I would like to know the council’s reasons why it does not agree that this is a vital [domestic routine/aspect of care and support].

[if true] The cut goes to the heart of [my/the service user’s] lifestyle

 

and engages [my/his/her] article 8 rights to respect for their private and family life, and means to develop [myself/himself/herself] in society, because    [add detail here]. [Or: article 9 Human Rights to manifest one’s religious beliefs].

It goes to the heart of well-being, choice and control. Ignoring this information is not capable of being seen as consistent with the spirit of personalisation, as the government guidance describes the policy of Putting People First, in the 2010 FACS guidance. It leaves clearly relevant considerations out of any of the thinking that has supposedly been done.

The Savva and Cambridgeshire cases say that arbitrary allocations are not lawful - at least not without an explanation of the council’s reasons for thinking that this response is feasibly and rationally sufficient, by way of the discharge of the mandatory and enforceable council duty to meet the assessed eligible needs (involving a link between the needs, the type of services thought to be appropriate, the rough amount and the rough cost, even for a personal budget in a direct payment format). The references and links are as follows: [2010] EWCA Civ 1209 and

 

Savva Link

and (2011) EWCA Civ 682 and

 

Cambridgeshire Link(upheld in the Supreme Court, for not significantly different reasoning).

The case law makes it clear that the council’s ordinary discretion to balance resources against others’ needs has to be articulated very carefully in the context of care plans that engage human rights

 

a margin of appreciation is there, but tighter than in other contexts, and subject to the requirement that there be an explanation of why elevating the budget above the right is proportionate and necessary in a democratic society (Re MM - [2007] EWHC 2003 (Fam) and MM link)

[if relevant] The cut is said to arise out of a move to outcomes-based specification, but the statutory duty is not to assess for the delivery of generalised outcomes; it is to assess for what is necessary and appropriate to meet eligible assessed needs. In the most recent previous plan there was provision for [whatever was specifically provided for in the care plan, such as 1:1] and now there is not, but no explanation has been given as to why what was needed before is no longer needed.

[if true] The cut is based on a unit cost which is not evidenced as being realistic in this area [and which is actually clearly able to be evidenced [if you are confident of this fact?] as unrealistic. There is no rational basis for the council adopting a stance that it is possible to buy as much of the service as is required in the care plan, if one is an ordinary private purchaser, anywhere, for the money, in this area, and the council surely cannot be suggesting it is acceptable to rationally or lawfully give a person a sum which forces a service user to be a direct employer or to grant a live-in licence to a worker, regardless of one’s preference for the use of the home

 

without breaching the article 8 right to respect for ones home, that is.


Conclusion

You may be assisted in an overview of the state of community care law on identical legislation in England by referring to the paper from a Scots Advocate, Murray Stable, in 2012.

 

Murray Stable link.

I look forward to your confirmation that you will be preparing a report to the authority with respect to the decision and the need to rectify the position.  

If the matter can be properly reconsidered in light of the statutory wording and public law rules about the full exercise of discretion, with reasons for any continuing disagreement articulated, that would be an alternative.

If neither course appeals, I look forward to your written reasons why it does not appear to you that the circumstances have given rise and/or are likely to give rise to a breach of the law, so that I may take further legal advice.

Yours sincerely, [etc etc.]

 

 

6.

A person’s service is cut by the provider, because of commercial necessity, after pressure from the council

 

without any matching change in the care plan

Concern about the legality of the council’s decision regarding [client’s name and the issue]

I am writing to you, in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, responsible for the corporate governance of this council, with a request that you consider the exercise of your duty under s5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. 

[…It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission … by any person holding any office or employment under the authority … has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to

 

(a) a contravention of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.


My interest

[Next, state who you are, eg the client in person, if you are generally capacitated, or their informal representative, if not, (for which wording, see below) or their formal representative if you have any lawful welfare-related decision-making status such as guardianship or any Scots welfare decision making authority.]

[If the person is lacking capacity:]

I am your client’s [describe the relationship] and have a legitimate interest in [his/her] well-being. It is my reasonable view that my [friend/relative] lacks capacity to make [his/her] own referral to you. As I am entitled to be consulted in relation to the best interests care planning that must be done for my [friend/relative], under the Scots Adults with Incapacity law, I am raising this referral to you on behalf of the person, and in pursuit of their best interests.

Alleged Breach

The Provider has recently cut the services contained in [my/the service user’s] care plan. [describe what is different, and when it started, as much as is possible, and as exactly as possible, referring to the old care plan, if possible].

This is not a complaint about the service as such; what is ongoing, is not the problem. It is what has been cut that is the problem: the council is accountable in public law terms (and potentially liable in private law) for breaches of delivery in the care plan, because that is what the council contracts for, with the provider, in order that the public law duty to meet assessed eligible needs, will be met.

I understand that the cuts have come in light of fees negotiations that resulted in your council’s persuading of the provider to drop its fees to the council, on the basis that it would be up to the Provider to make changes so far as it thought it was safe to do so. Unfortunately that is not a proper reflection of the service user’s rights, under community care law, which are to have the services specified in the care plan, provided, and the outcomes met, unless or until the person has been lawfully re-assessed. I appreciate that the care plan may well have been left to the Provider to create, but community care law makes it the council’s care plan, whether or not it is formally adopted as such; there is no other way the council can evidence what it has decided is appropriate by way of the arrangements it must make, in order to meet the assessed eligible needs.

The authorities for the assertion that procuring or allowing the above omission to deliver the services specified in the care plan, constitutes a public law wrong are the persuasive English judgments, as follows:

Gloucestershire

1997 (1998) 1 C.C.L.R. 7.

R v Islington LBC, ex p McMillan

, (1996) 160 LGRevR 32 1 (QBD).

 

Conclusion

 

You may be assisted in an overview of the state of community care law on identical legislation in England by referring to the paper from a Scots Advocate, Murray Stable, in 2012.

 

Murray Stable link

I look forward to your confirmation that you will be preparing a report to the authority with respect to the decision and the need to rectify the position.  

If the matter can be properly reconsidered in light of the statutory wording and public law rules about the full exercise of discretion, with reasons for any continuing disagreement articulated, that would be an alternative.

If neither course appeals, I look forward to your written reasons why it does not appear to you that the circumstances have given rise and/or are likely to give rise to a breach of the law, so that I may take further legal advice.

Yours sincerely, etc etc

7.

A personal budget is set by reference to an indicative RAS with no process for challenging it or getting it raised

Dear [the statutory monitoring officer’s name, usually the head of the legal department

 

always ring to get their name]


Concern about the legality of the council’s decision regarding [client’s name and the issue]

I am writing to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer, responsible for the corporate governance of this council, with a request that you consider the exercise of your duty under s5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

[…It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission … by any person holding any office or employment under the authority … has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to

 

(a) a contravention of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.


My interest

[Next, state who you are, eg the client in person, if you are generally capacitated, or their informal representative, if not, (for which wording, see below) or their formal representative if you have any lawful welfare-related decision-making status such as guardianship or any Scots welfare decision making authority.]

[If the person is lacking capacity:]

I am your client’s [describe the relationship] and have a legitimate interest in [his/her] well-being. It is my reasonable view that my [friend/relative] lacks capacity to make [his/her] own referral to you. As I am entitled to be consulted in relation to the best interests care planning that must be done for my [friend/relative], under the Scots Adults with Incapacity law, I am raising this referral to you on behalf of the person, and in pursuit of their best interests.

Alleged Breach

The breach of the law that I believe to be occurring or likely to occur if something is not done to rectify the situation is that the council has used a resource allocation syst