BC, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council
[2023] EWHC 3209 (Admin)
TJ, R (on the application of) v Monmouthshire County Council
15 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2594 (Admin)
High Court
A young adult with special needs was left without a home after leaving council care. The council didn't plan well enough for his transition to adult life and didn't listen to his wishes. A judge ruled the council acted wrongly and ordered them to do better.
Key Facts
- •TJ, a care leaver with complex needs (ADHD, ASD, PDA), was left without suitable supported accommodation after turning 18.
- •Monmouthshire County Council failed to provide a seamless transition, leading to a judicial review claim.
- •The council's assessment identified TJ's needs but offered only one unsuitable option (Pobl Hill House).
- •TJ's views and preferences were not adequately considered by the council.
- •There was a lack of collaboration between social services and housing departments.
- •The council presented homelessness as an option, contradicting the Code of Practice.
Legal Principles
Duties of a person exercising functions under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 regarding care and support needs, including ascertaining and regarding the individual's views, wishes, and feelings; promoting and respecting dignity; and having regard to characteristics, culture, and beliefs.
Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, section 6
Mandatory requirements in Part 6 Code of Practice for care leavers requiring additional specialist support, ensuring seamless and supported transition, and a re-assessment of needs.
Part 6 Code of Practice
Duty of public authorities to have due regard to disabled persons' disabilities and to acquire relevant material if not available, often requiring consultation.
R (Marouf) v SSHD [2023] UKSC 23 (referred to in the case)
Outcomes
Permission granted to bring the claim and the council found to be in breach of its duty to TJ.
The council failed to adequately consider TJ's views, wishes, and feelings; lacked transition planning and collaboration between social services and housing; and presented homelessness as an option contrary to the Code of Practice.
Declaration of breaches issued.
To address the council's past failures and guide future actions.
Mandatory orders not deemed necessary.
Given the ongoing assessment and engagement with a project in Newport, the court preferred to let the parties focus on these processes rather than imposing rigid mandatory orders.
Similar Cases
SK, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
[2024] EWHC 158 (Admin)
ZRR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley
[2024] EWHC 2073 (Admin)
TW, R (on behalf of) v Essex County Council
[2024] EWHC 264 (Admin)
DF, R (on the application of) v Essex County Council
[2023] EWHC 3330 (Admin)