High Court Clarifies Obligations of Local Authorities in Providing Accommodation to Asylum Seekers with Care Needs

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the matter of SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor [2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin), the High Court grappled with the interplay between a local authority’s obligations under the Care Act 2014 (CA 2014) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (SSHD) duty under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (IAA 1999), particularly in relation to providing accommodation to asylum seekers with eligible care needs.

Key Facts

The Claimants, SB and his mother SBO, both asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their application, faced the termination of accommodation and assistance initially provided by the London Borough of Newham (the Defendant). This was after the First Claimant’s needs were assessed under the CA 2014, recognizing significant care needs, including support in the home environment which was not met by the Second Claimant. Against the backdrop of these findings, the Defendant concluded that since the Claimants were asylum seekers, they were eligible for support under section 95 of the IAA 1999 instead and hence terminated the provision of accommodation and financial support to the Claimants, leading to the present judicial review.

The case hinged on several legal principles, particularly:

  1. Assessment of Care Needs: Pursuant to CA 2014, local authorities are required to assess individuals who may have care and support needs to determine eligibility under the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015.

  2. Accommodation-related Needs: An essential legal principle applied in this case is the provision of accommodation-related care and support under CA 2014. The legal test establishes that the need for accommodation by itself is not a need for care and support; rather, accommodation may be necessary where the care and support required is of a sort normally provided in the home and would be ineffective if the individual had no home.

  3. Interplay between CA 2014 and IAA 1999: The High Court confirmed the established legal framework that the SSHD’s powers under s.95 of the IAA 1999 are residual and should only be considered when no other support is available. Local authorities should assess care needs independently from the provision of asylum support.

  4. Provision under Housing Act 1996: The court clarified that section 23 of the CA 2014, which restricts a local authority from meeting needs through actions required under the Housing Act 1996, was not relevant in this case since the Claimants, being asylum seekers, are ineligible for housing assistance under the Housing Act 1996.

Outcomes

The High Court decided in favor of the Claimants, concluding that the Defendant’s decision was made on an incorrect legal basis, and accordingly quashed the decision terminating their accommodation. The core findings were:

  1. Failure to Assess Accommodation-related Needs: The Defendant failed to appropriately assess whether the First Claimant’s care needs were accommodation-related under the correct legal framework.

  2. Erroneous Reliance on IAA 1999: The court found the Defendant’s reliance on IAA 1999 s.95 support to be misplaced, emphasizing the residual nature of such asylum support and the incorrectness of refusing CA 2014 support on this basis.

  3. Mistaken Application of CA 2014 s.23: The Defendant’s reliance on CA 2014 s.23 was inapplicable due to the Claimants’ ineligibility for assistance under the Housing Act 1996.

The Court determined that the Defendant must reassess the First Claimant’s need for accommodation relating to his care and support, without considering SSHD’s support under IAA 1999.

Conclusion

SB & Anor v London Borough of Newham & Anor reinforces the necessity for local authorities to rigorously apply the lawful framework when addressing the needs for care and support, particularly accommodation-related needs. The decision underscores the autonomous duty of local authorities under CA 2014 and reaffirms the principle that SSHD’s asylum support serves as a safety net intended for use only when no other support prevails. The judgment provides a clear exposition of the legal approach to be taken when considering whether care needs necessitate the provision of accommodation and the sequential assessment of eligibility for support under CA 2014 before considering SSHD’s residual duties under IAA 1999.