This is an important case in demonstrating the (unlawful) lengths which local authorities will go to try and justify and uphold a bad decision.
In the case of Shala v Birmingam City Council in 2007 the court warned local authorities against relying on the advice on mental health issues of a GP from NowMedical who had not examined the applicant in preference to that of a consultant psychiatrist who had examined her.
In this case the council relied on two psychiatrists from NowMedical who had not examined the applicant in preference to the report of a consultant psychiatrist who had done so. To make matters worse the council justified ignoring the actual findings of that psychiatrist based on the reviewing officer’s reading of her medical records. The fact that the medical records did not contain particular findings was relied on rather than anything positively stated in the records. Neither of the two NowMedical psychiatrists set out any reasons for disagreeing with the psychiatrist’s findings but just made negative comments before moving on to ignore the findings.
As in Shala the Court pointed out that if the council had concerns about the findings of the psychiatrist who had examined the applicant, found that she had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and that her accommodation was unsuitable for her there were options available such as getting a report from someone else who could examine the applicant or putting questions to the psychiatrist. It was not considered to be lawful to simply reject the psychiatrist’s findings.
This shows that those acting for applicants should:-