DF, R (on the application of) v Essex County Council
[2023] EWHC 3330 (Admin)
BC, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council
15 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3209 (Admin)
High Court
A 17-year-old boy, BC, became homeless due to family problems. The local council knew about his situation but didn't provide him with a place to stay, even though the law says they should. A judge ruled the council was wrong, and even though the boy waited a while to go to court, he was still given help because the council's mistake was ongoing. This case is important because it shows councils must quickly help homeless kids.
Key Facts
- •BC, a 17-year-old with health issues and a difficult family life, was left homeless after being asked to leave his family home.
- •Surrey County Council (SCC) had prior involvement with BC's family and was aware of his vulnerabilities.
- •Despite urgent referrals highlighting BC's homelessness and need for accommodation, SCC failed to provide it or conduct a timely assessment under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
- •BC stayed temporarily with a friend's mother, but this arrangement was precarious and unsustainable.
- •SCC eventually closed BC's case, despite continued evidence of his need for support and accommodation.
- •BC subsequently experienced homelessness, mental health challenges, and significant difficulties transitioning into adulthood.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a duty under section 20(1)(c) of the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation for children in need whose carers are prevented from providing suitable accommodation.
Children Act 1989
The duty under section 20 is immediate and unqualified, regardless of resource constraints or availability of other support mechanisms.
Various case law (R (JL) v Islington LBC [2009] EWHC 458 (Admin); G v Southwark; R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham [2008] 1 WLR 535)
Suitable accommodation must be appropriate to the child's needs, but the assessment is a matter for the council's judgment, subject to judicial review.
R (KI) v LB Brent [2018] EWHC 1068; R (O) v London Borough of Lambeth [2016] EWHC 937 (Admin); R (FL) v LB Lambeth [2010] EWHC 49
A child is considered 'looked after' if provided accommodation by the authority for over 24 hours under the Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989, section 22
Delay in bringing a judicial review claim may not bar relief if there is an ongoing breach of duty or good reason for the delay.
Various case law (R (L) v Nottinghamshire CC [2007] EWHC 2364 (Admin); R (Collins) v Knowsley MBC [2008] EWHC 2551 (Admin); SA v Kent CC [2010] EWHC 848; R (T) v Hertfordshire CC [2015] EWHC 1936 (Admin))
Outcomes
SCC owed BC a duty under section 20 CA89 to provide accommodation by 18 September 2019.
BC was a child in need, without suitable accommodation, and his mother was prevented from providing care. SCC's failure to act was unreasonable.
SCC's arrangements for BC to stay with his friend's mother from 17 October 2019 constituted accommodation under section 20 CA89.
SCC played a significant role in maintaining this arrangement after 17 October 2019.
BC acquired the status of 'a person qualifying for advice and assistance' under section 24 CA89.
BC was looked after (albeit inadequately) for a sufficient period, triggering this status.
The claim was allowed despite the delay in bringing proceedings.
SCC's unlawful failure to act was an ongoing breach, and there were good reasons for the delay, including difficulties obtaining disclosure of relevant documents.
Similar Cases
TJ, R (on the application of) v Monmouthshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 2594 (Admin)
Rebecca Pickford, R (on the application of) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 756 (Admin)
ZRR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley
[2024] EWHC 2073 (Admin)
TT v Essex County Council
[2023] EWHC 826 (Admin)