NS, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office
[2023] EWHC 2675 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
30 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
High Court
A family of asylum seekers needed help. The local council stopped helping them, saying the government should instead. The court said the council should have checked if they actually needed help *before* deciding the government should take over. The court told the council to reconsider, forcing them to help the family.
Key Facts
- •The Claimants, Bangladeshi asylum seekers, include a son with learning disabilities, depression, and adjustment disorder, and his mother, his full-time carer.
- •The London Borough of Newham (Defendant) initially provided accommodation and financial support under the Care Act 2014.
- •The Defendant terminated support on May 5, 2023, arguing the Claimants were eligible for support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
- •The Claimants argued the Care Act 2014 required the Defendant to provide accommodation to meet the son's accommodation-related care needs.
- •The case challenged the legality of the Defendant's decision to terminate support.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a duty under the Care Act 2014 to meet eligible needs for care and support, including accommodation-related needs.
Care Act 2014, sections 1, 9, 13, 18
Accommodation-related needs exist where care and support are of a sort normally provided in the home and would be effectively useless without a home.
R (SG) v Haringey LBC [2015] EWHC Civ 2579 (Admin); R (L) v Westminster City Council [2013] 1 WLR 1445
The Secretary of State's power to provide asylum support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is residual and only applies where no other support is available.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 95; R (Westminster City Council) v NASS [2002] UKHL 38
Local authorities cannot meet needs under sections 18-20 of the Care Act 2014 by doing anything another authority is required to do under the Housing Act 1996.
Care Act 2014, section 23
Outcomes
The claim succeeded.
The Defendant misdirected itself by relying on the availability of asylum support without properly considering whether the Claimant had accommodation-related care needs under the Care Act 2014. The Defendant failed to apply the correct legal test for determining accommodation-related needs and erroneously relied on section 23 of the Care Act 2014.
The Defendant's decision of May 5, 2023, was quashed.
This restores the situation to before the unlawful decision, requiring the Defendant to reconsider the provision of support under section 18 of the Care Act 2014.
Similar Cases
ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
ZRR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley
[2024] EWHC 2073 (Admin)
SA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin)
THE KING (on the application of CVN) v LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON
[2023] EWHC 464 (Admin)