TT v Essex County Council
[2023] EWHC 826 (Admin)
TW, R (on behalf of) v Essex County Council
9 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 264 (Admin)
High Court
A young man challenged the council's decision to not give him extra support after he turned 18. The court said the council's decision was reasonable because the young man had chosen not to be in the care system and the housing provided wasn't under the same rules as formal care. The young man's decision to not be in formal care, though maybe not the best, was respected by the court.
Key Facts
- •TW, born in May 2004, challenged Essex County Council's decision that he was not a 'former relevant child' under the Children Act 1989.
- •TW's accommodation was secured through the Essex Young People’s Partnership (EYPP), later Essex NEST, a scheme providing support and sometimes housing.
- •The Council argued the EYPP/NEST accommodation wasn't provided under section 20 of the 1989 Act, implying TW 'rejected' section 20 support.
- •TW argued he was a child in need, and the Council's policy regarding EYPP/NEST accommodation was unlawful.
- •The case involved assessing whether TW met the threshold for 'child in need' and whether his choice to not be a 'looked after child' was informed.
Legal Principles
Determination of whether a child is 'in need' under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 involves considering if the child is 'unlikely' to achieve a 'reasonable' standard of health or development without local authority services.
Children Act 1989, section 17(10)(a)
Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 prioritizes providing accommodation for children in need, and this duty cannot be lawfully discharged otherwise (unless the child validly chooses otherwise).
Children Act 1989, section 20
A local authority's decision regarding whether a child is 'in need' is subject to judicial review on the basis of irrationality.
Judicial Review Principles
The threshold for requiring accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 is not necessarily higher than the threshold for being a 'child in need' under section 17.
Case Law Interpretation
The exercise of discretion to treat a person as a 'former relevant child' under the Children Act 1989 requires consideration of various factors, including the promptness of any challenge and the degree of injustice.
R(HP) v Greenwich LBC [2023] EWHC 744 (Admin)
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The court found the Council's decision that TW was not a 'child in need' was not irrational. TW's choice to avoid the 'looked after child' status, although perhaps not in his best interests, was considered genuine and informed enough to support the council's decision. The EYPP/NEST scheme was deemed not to provide accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
Similar Cases
HP, R (on the application of) v The Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Greenwich
[2023] EWHC 744 (Admin)
DF, R (on the application of) v Essex County Council
[2023] EWHC 3330 (Admin)
TJ, R (on the application of) v Monmouthshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 2594 (Admin)
BC, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council
[2023] EWHC 3209 (Admin)