R (L) v Nottinghamshire County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE BURTON |
| Judgment Date | 26 September 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 2364 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/4218/2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 26 September 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 2364 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Burton
CO/4218/2007
Mr I Wise (instructed by Bhatia Best, Nottingham 6) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr L Samuel (instructed by the Legal Department for Nottinghamshire County Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
The applicant L was born on 2 August of 1989. She was accommodated by the defendant, the Nottinghamshire County Council, for the first time under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 Act, when aged five in February 1995. She had a fraught and difficult childhood with an evanescent father, and a mother with whom her relationship was strained and spasmodic. She ran away from home aged six. She was expelled from school aged 7. She was placed on a child protection registrar. She was injured and allegedly abused by her stepfather, although her mother blamed her for the alleged assault and refused to have her back at home when she was aged 11.
In November 2000, after a period in what was called "Police Protection", she was taken under the wing of the defendant council again under section 20 of the 1989 Act aged 11 through to aged 15. During that period she was reported to be in a relationship with a Schedule 1 offender when she was 13. At aged 14 to be in a relationship with two 19 year old males. She attempted to selfharm and to commit suicide on two separate occasion. She was in the care home under section 20 until December 2004 when she left to go to live with a new boyfriend, who was not himself, I am afraid, entirely satisfactory. She was using drugs and drinking heavily, as reported to the social worker at the time, but she lived with him and his mother through until May 2005. It appears that she had a child by this boyfriend, who was taken into care within days of being born in July 2005. After a period of time with the mother-in-law, to which I have referred, she then went to live with her mother, but that was another difficult period and she spent a lot of time away from that residence.
In August 2005 she requested further accommodation from the defendants who referred her to TPHABG RO*, and that was unavailing and on 15 September 2005 there occurred the events, which have formed the subject of prime consideration on this application, for which permission has been given by Dobbs J. She was evicted from her mother's house on 15 September 2005 and accommodated by the defendant at a bed and breakfast accommodation called Travel Lodge in REBG ford until 21 September 2005, and provided with some financial assistance. She wrote a letter to the defendant social worker thanking him for help, as she said if he had not arranged Travel Lodge she would have been on the streets.
In the month or so after that she was accommodated at King Edward Hotel, funded by Bassett Law Council Housing Department. She moved to another premises called French Horn, again funded by Bassett Law and again on 27 September Bassett Law asserted that the responsibility for her was that of the defendant. She informed the defendant that she had been evicted from the French Horn in October 2005 and was accommodated in November 2005 by Hope for the Homeless for a short period.
She then moved on 8 November 2005 to live with first a boyfriend and then with an aunt. She took up a flat, for which her father, it seems for the first time, provided some support in Nottingham in February 2006, `but at some stage in 2006 became street homeless. In 2007 she went to her present solicitors, whose advice was to issue the present proceedings which have, with permission, now come before me.
The issue is whether when the defendant provided accommodation for her at Travel Lodge, between 15 and 21 September 2005, they did so under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The case for the claimant is that the accommodation thereafter, albeit paid for by Bassett Law District Council, in King Edward Hotel and/or French Horn and even the accommodation of Hope for the homeless, was also accommodation provided by the defendant under section 20. But I have not needed to consider that period because, for reasons that I shall indicate, it will be enough to resolve this case if, for the period of 15 until 21 September 2005 she was accommodated by the defendant at Travel Lodge pursuant to section 20.
If she was then it is common ground that she had been, prior to aged 17, in the care of the defendant for at least 13 weeks, indeed for considerably longer, as I indicated in the course of my reading the history of her unfortunate life.
The 13 weeks is significant because in order for her to have been an eligible child within the 1989 Act, she had to have been, at the material time, aged 16 or 17 and have been looked after for at least 13 weeks since the age of 14 (see section 19(b)(ii) of Schedule 2 Part II of the 1989 Act and the Children Leaving Care Regulations 2001 Regulation 3.) If she was such an eligible child then she would become a relevant child pursuant to section 22 of the 1989 Act which reads as follows: CHECKED
"(1)In this Act, any reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority is a reference to a child who is—
…
(b) provided with accommodation by the authority in the exercise of any functions (in particular those under this Act) which are social services functions within the meaning of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, apart from functions under section 17, 23B and 24B.
(2) In subsection (1) accommodation means accommodation which is provided for a continuous period of more than 24 hours."
Consequently if she was, after having attained the qualifying 13-eek period prior to the age of 17, in accommodation provided by the defendant for a continuous period of more than 24 hours, then she was a relevant child.
The 24 hours in question, albeit which was in fact six or seven days which is relied upon, is that in Travel Lodge. Once she was a relevant child then on attaining the age of 18 she became a former relevant child, by virtue of section 23 (c) of the 1989 Act. It is common ground that if she is a former relevant child a considerable number of obligations towards her must be undertaken by the defendant, even after the age of 18. The claim that is made in these proceedings seeks the following relief, or in material part:
(i) a declaration that the claimant has been looked after for the prescribed 13 week period and is a former relevant child;
(ii) a mandatory order requiring the defendant to assess the claimant's needs and produce a pathway plan which accords with regulation 8 of the 2001 regulations in the shortest
period deemed by the court to be reasonable
(3) a mandatory order requiring the defendant to appoint a personal adviser for the claimant forthwith and in any event within three weeks days.
It is common ground that if she a former relevant child, by virtue of findings I make with regard to what was her status as between her and the defendant between 15 and 21 September 2005, then those obligations follow.
The defendant asserts that they simply provided help with accommodation under section 17 of the 1989 Act. Section 17 provides for a duty and a power on a local authority, whose material part is as follows, section 17(1):checked
"It shall be the general duty of every local authority (in addition to the other duties imposed on them by this Part)—
(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
(b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families,
by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs."
By an amendment to section 17, as a result of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 116(1) which came into force on 7 November 2002, a new subsection 17(6) was added, which reads as follows: checked
"(6) The services provided by a local authority in the exercise of functions conferred on them by this section may include providing accommodation …"
This was to make good a lacuna, as was seen in section 17, which had been identified in the cases which led to the decision of the House of Lords in R v G v Barnet London Borough council and the R v W v Lambeth Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 2008 in situations in which councils had been providing accommodation, as they understood it, under section 17, which turned out to have been ultra vires as found by the courts.
That power under and function under section 17(1) and (6) is what the defendant say they did in September 2005.
The claimant relies, as I have indicated, on section 20 of the 1989 Act, which in material parts reads as follows under the heading "Provision of accommodation for children; general": checked
(1) Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of —
(a) their being no person who has parental responsibility for him; [or)
(b) his being lost or having been abandoned; or
(c) the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care."
I have added the word "[or]" after (a) because it was common ground that the three subsections are disjunctive and in this case it is subsection (c) which is relied upon by the claimant.
Subsection 20(6) reads as follows:
"before providing accommodation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of FL) v Lambeth London Borough Council
...v Caerphilly County BC [2005] EWHC 586 (Admin), [2005] 2 FCR 153, [2005] 2 FLR 860. R (on the application of L) v Nottinghamshire CC [2007] EWHC 2364 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 158 R (on the application of M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London BC[2008] UKHL 14, [2008] 3 FCR 688, [2008] 4 All E......
-
R (G) v London Borough of Southwark
...authority had arranged accommodation for a child but was reluctant to accept that it had done so under section 20: see R (L) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2007] EWHC 2364; R (D) v Southwark London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 182, [2007] 1 FLR 2181; R (S) v Sutton London Borough Co......
-
R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council
...Council [2007] EWHC 1082 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 441; R (S) v Sutton London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 790; and R (L) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2007] EWHC 2364 38 In Southwark London Borough Council v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182, [2007] 1 FLR 2181, a local authority social worke......
-
JG and Another v Kent County Council TG (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and Another (Interested Parties)
...for TG. Absent their assessment, there was no alternative but for the Court to take a view as to whether it was – see R (L) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2007] EWHC 2364 (Admin) at [27]. So far as Ms Coombs said in her evidence that she did not consider that WG or TwinG had suffered sig......