DF, R (on the application of) v Essex County Council

22 December 2023

[2023] EWHC 3330 (Admin)

High Court

A teenager lost her home after her mother died. The local council didn't give her a new home, saying she didn't need one because she could stay where she was for a while. The court agreed with the council because the teenager's situation wasn't immediately dangerous, and a new law was coming that would change how the council helps kids in these situations. The council didn't have to treat the teenager any differently after she turned 18.

Key Facts

•17-year-old claimant (DF/C) lived with her mother in a council flat.
•Mother died from a drug overdose; C was assessed as a 'child in need'.
•Landlord served notice to quit the flat.
•C wished to remain in the flat; legal questions arose regarding her homelessness and the local authority's duty of care.
•C turned 18 during the proceedings.
•Landlord (CBH) offered C alternative accommodation before her 18th birthday as an exceptional measure.

Legal Principles

Definition of 'homeless' under s.175 Housing Act 1996.

Housing Act 1996

Local authority's duty to provide accommodation to children in need under s.20 Children Act 1989.

Children Act 1989, s.20

Distinction between bare licence and contractual licence.

Chandler v Kerley [1978], Metropolitan Properties v Cronan (1981-82), Terunnanse v Terunnanse [1968]

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and its relevance to homelessness.

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Article 8 ECHR and its potential application to eviction.

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8

Local authority's continuing obligations to former relevant children under s.23C Children Act 1989.

Children Act 1989, s.23C

Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]

Joint Guidance on homelessness and accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds.

Joint Guidance (2018)

Outcomes

Claim dismissed.

The claimant was found to be homeless under s.175 HA 1996 after the notice to quit expired, but this did not automatically mean she required accommodation under s.20 CA 1989. The council's decision not to provide s.20 accommodation was deemed reasonable, considering the circumstances and the imminent changes in legislation regarding accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds. The council's refusal to treat the claimant as a former relevant child was also upheld.

DF, R (on the application of) v Essex County Council

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

BC, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council

ZRR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley

TW, R (on behalf of) v Essex County Council

SK, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Rebecca Pickford, R (on the application of) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council