UK: Local Authority National Assistance Act ´Deprivation Of Assets´ Procedures Ruled Incompatible With Human Rights Convention

Last Updated: 14 December 2001

Beeson (suing by his personal representatives) v Dorset County Council (30 November 2001) (unreported) (QBD)

The Administrative Court has ruled that local authority National Assistance Act 'deprivation of assets' procedures are incompatible with article 6 of the Convention, (fair determination of civil rights) and that the limited supervisory scope of judicial review is insufficient to cure that incompatibility.

The solution, which must be accepted by local authorities, for future determinations of a person's intention when giving their property away, is appointment of a 3-person independent panel. The judgment gives real teeth to such panels, by emphasising that they must be made fully aware that they are fact finding bodies, who must give clear reasons for accepting or rejecting evidence, and whose findings will have to be accepted by the authority, unless there is a very good reason why not. These changes to current panel practice will have an inevitable knock-on effect for the clout, constitution and training of Complaints Panels sitting as an 'appeal' body from such decisions, and possibly even the wider range of assessment and provision decision complaints within the social services field.

The facts were that a Mr Beeson owned and occupied his house, which was his only major asset. In 1997, at the age of 90, he suffered a stroke and was hospitalised. Shortly after his discharge, he gifted his house to his son, out of concern that his son, whose marriage had recently broken down, might otherwise become homeless. Mr Beeson continued to occupy his home and was keen to live independently, but in 1999 he suffered another stroke and was subsequently assessed by the council as needing residential care.

In considering Mr Beeson's application for assistance with the cost of his residential placement, the local social services authority decided that Mr Beeson had "deprived himself of an asset with which he could have funded his residential care" by gifting his house to his son. Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 places a duty on local authorities to provide residential accommodation to those in need of care and attention not otherwise available. Section 22 requires local authorities to make a charge for the full cost of that accommodation unless the person satisfies the authority that they are unable to meet the costs. Regulation 20 of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 provides for the amount of capital to be disregarded (currently £18,500) when assessing someone's ability to pay, whilst regulation 25(1) states that 'a resident may be treated as possessing actual capital of which he has deprived himself for the purpose of decreasing the amount he may be liable to pay for his accommodation...'.

Mr B 'appealed' against the decision that he should be deemed still to own his house, through the council's social services complaints procedure (each authority is obliged to operate such a system). Mr Beeson's initial appeal was rejected by the Complaints Officer, as was his second level appeal. The third and final level of appeal was to a panel consisting of two councillors and an independent chairperson appointed by the council, as per the usual practice under the Complaints Procedure Directions 1990.

Although the evidence given to the panel by Mr Beeson's son was that neither he nor his father had been aware of the 'deprivation of assets' regulations when the house was transferred, and that his father planned to die in his own home, and not in residential care, the panel was of the view that "ignorance of the law is no defence and accordingly there had been a deprivation of assets..." That conclusion was ratified by the Director of Social Services who, in his decision letter, informed Mr Beeson that either he could pay the accommodation costs, or his son could agree to the council placing a charge on the property.

Mr Beeson's judicial review claim was successful, the judge finding that (a) the council's decision was based on a legal misdirection and (b) the complaints procedure was incompatible with article 6 ECHR.


In law, the test under regulation 25(1) of whether someone had deprived him or herself of an asset "for the purpose of decreasing or escaping liability to pay" was a subjective test which the council had failed to identify and apply with sufficient clarity, as indicated by the observation of a panel member that 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse'. The panel was not given as much assistance on this as it should have been; for example it did not appear to have been shown the Secretary of State's guidance on how to approach such decision-making.

Further, the evidence of Mr Beeson's son that the transfer took place at a time when his father intended to live, and ultimately die, in his home was of central importance; yet there was nothing in the panel's findings to show that, applying the correct subjective test, it was rejecting the son's evidence, which would have been necessary to underpin the finding it had gone on to make. In order to give an adequately reasoned decision, the panel would have had to explain precisely why it was rejecting that evidence. There was nothing in the Director's decision letter to indicate any awareness of a problem in the panel's decision-making process and in any event, it was doubtful whether the Director could have cured the flaw in the panel's finding without at least hearing the oral evidence of Mr Beeson's son.

Although that finding alone was a sufficient basis for quashing the council's decision, the judge went on to consider the Convention points in full as these could "affect the procedure to be followed when the decision is retaken", as well as providing an additional basis for a finding in the claimants' favour.

Article 6(1) provides:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".

Civil rights and obligations

The judge found that, in as much as Mr Beeson was claiming an entitlement to have his house left out of account in the determination of his liability to pay, and, therefore, of the extent to which the council would provide funding, Mr Beeson had "suffered an interference with his means of subsistence and was claiming an individual, economic right flowing from specific rules laid down in a statue", so as to come within the meaning of an article 6 "civil right" as set out by the ECtHR in Salesi v Italy.

The result of the assessment of need was to generate a duty under the statute to provide accommodation and a separate duty to recover payment for it in accordance with the provisions of s22 and s26 NAA 1948. The various duties and entitlements arose directly through the operation of the statute, not by way of offer and acceptance, and the discretionary element in regulation 25 was not fatal to this analysis.


It could be said that there was a "determination" of that civil right, either at the stage of the final decision by the council, or that the decision triggered a dispute which was the subject of a determination by the court. The fact that there was a very real dispute between Mr Beeson and the council as to the purpose for which he gifted his house to his son indicated that the ultimate decision could properly be characterised as the resolution of a dispute, rather than as the mere exercise of a legal power by the council.

Fair and impartial tribunal

The complaints procedure by itself was inadequate to secure the requisite degree of independence and impartiality. There was only one independent member on the panel, the other two members of the panel being members of the defendant council and, in any event, the actual decision was taken by the council's own Director of Social Services. The council's decision clearly had resource implications and the risk of this influencing the panel members and the Director was obvious and could not be dismissed as negligible. The question therefore was whether the judicial review process could compensate for the lack of an independent element in the decision-making process so as to ensure overall compliance with art. 6(1).

The judge concluded that it could not. This case could be distinguished from the Alconbury case where it was held that judicial review was capable in principle of providing sufficient judicial control of a planning decision by the Secretary of State. There was sufficient independence vested in the role of the planning inspector, who was an expert tribunal, to make it unnecessary that the High Court should have a broad jurisdiction to review his decisions of fact. The same could not be said of a councillor who is directly connected to one of the parties to the dispute, ie the council, and it was impossible for the court to cure the often imperceptible effects of the influence of the connection between the fact-finding body and a party to the dispute, since the court has no jurisdiction to reach its own conclusion on the primary facts; still less any power to weigh the evidence.

It would be neither appropriate nor permissible for the court seek to cure the article 6 deficiency by expanding its fact-finding functions so as to become an appellate court, rather than one of review: the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court is supervisory except where a right of appeal has been specifically conferred by statute.

The judge however went on to say that no declaration of incompatibility with Convention Rights would be made, under the Human Rights Act 1998, because it would not require much, or anything outside the existing powers of local authorities, to make the decision-making process into one which was art. 6 compliant. The appointment of a fully independent panel, (which the authority has the power to do, under the Complaints Procedure Directions, 1990) when combined with the supervision of the court on judicial review, would provide a sufficient procedural safeguard. The directions require 'at least' one independent person, and thus provide current lawful scope for the provision of three. The final decision-maker (usually the Director of Social Services) would have to give reasons, and if the authority's decision departed from the panel's findings, it would have to disclose a properly reasoned basis for doing so, which would enable the court to exercise effective supervision. No change in legislation was therefore necessary to achieve article 6 compliance: it simply required a change of practice.


We cannot imagine that Authorities would want to have complaints panels with three independent members solely for these relatively rare 'deprivations of assets' decisions, and retain the one independent member for the rest. The court said that ordinary complaints about assessment of needs and provision would not attract article 6 obligations (because they are not about the determination of civil rights as such, depending as they largely do on discretionary decisions). But if 3-independent member panels become the norm, it may be that this case will bring about a new era in complaints determination whereby complaints panels play a very much enhanced role in ensuring satisfaction and equitable service delivery.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.