THE KING (on the application of CVN) v LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON
[2023] EWHC 464 (Admin)
ZB & Anor., R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
7 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 489 (Admin)
High Court
The court said Croydon didn't do enough to help two disabled kids go to school, so they have to pay the family money. The court also said it's not their problem that the kids' house was bad, that's someone else's fault. A different court will decide where the kids go to school.
Key Facts
- •ZB and DB are profoundly disabled children aged 14 and 12, respectively.
- •Their mother, Ms Bell, brought multiple proceedings to secure adequate housing, education, and social care.
- •The family lived in unsuitable housing in Croydon, characterized by damp, mold, pest infestation, and inadequate space for the children's needs.
- •The children's health and education suffered severely due to the housing conditions.
- •Croydon refused to place the children at the Children's Trust School (CTS) due to cost concerns, opting for Linden Lodge School (LLS) instead.
- •The children were placed at the Children's Trust (TCT), adjacent to CTS, while legal proceedings continued.
- •EHC plans were in place for the children to attend LLS.
- •Appeals against the EHC plans were lodged with the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •Claimants conceded that the FTT was the appropriate forum for disputes regarding EHC plans.
Legal Principles
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR (right to education)
A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] 2 AC 363
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
R (Bernard) v Enfield LBC [2003] HRLR 4
Section 193(2) of the 1996 Act (duty to secure suitable accommodation)
R (Bell) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 2008 (Admin)
Judicial review remedies are generally forward-looking.
R (AA) v NHS Commissioning Board [2023] EWHC 43 (Admin)
Avoidance of 'rolling judicial review'
R (Dolan) v Secretary of State for Health [2021] 1 WLR 2326
The FTT is the appropriate forum for disputes regarding EHC plans.
R (Q) v Staffordshire CC [2021] EWHC 3486 (Admin)
Outcomes
Declaration that Croydon breached the Claimants' Article 2 Protocol 1 rights between 2 December 2020 and 19 April 2022.
Croydon's efforts to ensure the children attended LLS were 'completely ineffectual', failing to provide adequate transport and escort arrangements for a significant period.
Award of just satisfaction of £10,000 to each child for the A2P1 breach.
Compensation reflects the period of missed education and lack of alternative provision.
Dismissal of the Article 8 claim.
Claimants failed to establish that Croydon bore primary responsibility for the breach, primarily due to Lambeth's role in providing unsuitable housing.
Refusal to make a mandatory order maintaining the children's placement at TCT pending the FTT proceedings.
Croydon had not expressed intent to move the children, and the Court couldn't determine the legality of a future decision to move them.
Dismissal of remaining claims seeking quashing orders and mandatory orders related to the children's placement at CTS and care arrangements.
These matters fall under the FTT's jurisdiction.