R Sk v Nottingham City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Robert Owen |
| Judgment Date | 19 September 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3918 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/9475/2011 |
| Date | 19 September 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3918 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Sitting at:
Birmingham Civil Justice Centre
Priory Courts
33 Bull Street
Birmingham
B4 6DS
His Honour Judge Robert Owen Qc
Case No: CO/9475/2011
Mr Suterwalla (instructed by Bhatia Best) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Mrs McDonald (instructed by Nottingham City Council) behalf of the Defendant.
Approved Judgment
His Honour Judge Robert Owen QC:
This is an application by the claimant, SK, for permission to seek judicial review of the decision of the defendant, Nottingham City Council, dated 18 October 2010 whereby the defendant determined that the claimant, who was born on 8 October 1993, was not 'a child in need' within the meaning of section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 and that they owed to her no duty to provide her with accommodation pursuant to section 20 of that Act.
It is common ground that in June 2010 the Claimant, then aged 16 years 8 months, was, upon her request, provided with accommodation at Aiden House, Tewkesbury Road, Nottingham by the [defendant's] housing authority pursuant to Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. The defendant's children's services were not aware of or concerned with the Claimant until on or after 5 October 2010.
The Claimant also seeks to challenge the defendant's subsequent assessment in August 2011 whereby the defendant affirmed its earlier conclusion that at all material times the Claimant, who had been provided with such accommodation by the housing authority independently of any step or action taken by their Children's Services, was not a child in need and was not eligible for the provision of accommodation by them pursuant to section 20 of the Act. They rejected the assertion made on behalf of the Claimant by her solicitors that the accommodation which had in fact been provided to her since in or about June 2010 was to be treated as having been provided by them pursuant to section 20 and that the claimant was therefore an eligible child within the meaning of paragraph 19B of schedule 2 to the Act.
Accordingly, in these proceedings the Claimant seeks substantive relief in the form of a declaration that the defendant's decision(s) to which I have referred were irrational and thus unlawful and a declaration that the accommodation provided to the Claimant by the housing authority is to be deemed to have been provided to her by the defendant pursuant to their statutory duty under section 20 of the Act and that, therefore, she qualified as 'an eligible child' within the meaning of paragraph 19B of schedule 2 to the Act.
The defendant rejected the claims made on behalf of the Claimant on the basis that they had not been involved in the provision of accommodation for the Claimant prior to October 2010, that the accommodation in question did not result from any action by them and that their assessments and conclusions were reasonable and in accordance with judicial and departmental guidance. The defendant's position is and was that the Claimant was not a child in need at the time of their assessment of her and that it reasonably did not appear to them that she required accommodation in the circumstances. Furthermore, the defendant relied on the fact that when asked in August 2011 as to her wishes and feelings the Claimant made it clear that she would have rejected any offer made by the defendant's children's services under sections 17 and 20 involving, as it would, a placement with a foster carer of children's home.
Proceedings were commenced by claim form issued on 4 October 2011. The defendant suggested in their skeleton argument that the claim in respect of the first decision was not brought promptly and was out of time. The Claimant complained that she was not made aware of the decision until August 2011. The application before me, however, was presented and argued, by both parties, on its merits.
The claim was initially stayed in January 2012 pending the determination of an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Singh in R (B) v Nottingham City Council [2011] EWHC 2933 (Admin) which raised issues similar to those which arise in the present case. Permission to appeal having been granted by Hooper LJ on 8 May 2012 with an order for expedition, the appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the claimant, B, and did not proceed. Accordingly, the present claim was restored. In support of the stay in the present case it had been argued on behalf of the Claimant that the present claim could not succeed unless R (B) v Nottingham City Council could be distinguished. In the present case the defendant argued that the decision in indistinguishable from R (B) v Nottingham City Council, which was correctly decided. The Claimant challenged the correctness of that decision and pointed to the fact that permission to appeal had been granted.
It is common ground that at the age of 16 the Claimant became pregnant, and this resulted in her parents excluding her from their home. The Claimant had other problems apart from her unplanned pregnancy, including having to cope with Type 1 diabetes, which was unstable. She suffers from insulin resistance, as well as low immunity from infection. She suffers recurrent and unexpected admissions to hospital to deal with those problems. Having left home and initially stayed with her boyfriend, the father of her daughter [L, who was born on 13 January 2011], the claimant, acting independently, sought accommodation from the local housing authority, who offered her a place at Aiden House, a hostel for pregnant teenagers and mothers, it appears, pursuant to their duty under the Housing Act 1996. The Claimant settled in well at the hostel. Indeed, she remains there albeit within the semi-independent unit on site.
Subsequently, in early October 2010, the Claimant's GP referred her to social services by reason of her vulnerability. This referral is recorded or mentioned in the defendant's first initial assessment, which commenced on 5 October 2010. The reason for the initial assessment, completed on 12 October 2010, was given as follows:
"Referral received by Dr Ishabeck of Victoria Health Centre raising concerns about [S], who is insulin Dependent, classed as vulnerable, lacking family support, and it is unknown what services were in place to support her… Undertaken to see [S] at Aiden House with a support worker present. [S] unclear about the referral, and why it was made. Please refer to the rest of the IA for more information."
Mr Suterwalla, on behalf of the claimant, and Mrs McDonald for the defendant each referred to this initial assessment and, indeed, the subsequent assessment of 26 August 2011. Within the first assessment, the following appears:
"…concerns were raised with regards to [S] and her being insulin dependent. However [S] states that she is taking her medication and checking her sugar levels on a daily basis.
(6) [S] has good support from her family.
Concerning and risk factors:
[S] did admit to there being an isolated incident with her boyfriend whereby during an altercation he pushed her. She states she was not hurt as a result of this however she states she will not take anyone treating her badly and that she would if she had to report to the Police should anything untoward happen again. [S] appeared to take on board advice with regards to domestic violence and the impact on her unborn baby and is receptive to support.
Summary and Analysis:
It appears that the information received by the referral was not entirely accurate. [S] and her babies' needs can be met through the CAF process which she is happy to do. Agencies to be informed of this and CAF process can begin."
Under "Protective and Resilient Factors":
"The doctor referring [S] does not know her very well, and therefore her circumstances. [S] is working well with Aiden House, being there four months with no concerns. [S] appears to have a very close bond to her baby already, talking positive about how she will protect and take care of her boy. [S] has also started purchasing items for the baby."
Under "Social Presentation":
"No concerns. [S] appears to take care of her appearance. She said that she already had begun buying things for her baby, and states that her family have contributed towards this, too."
Under "Self-care Skills":
"[S] states that she does find sharing accommodation in communal areas annoying. She states that she is clean, and does not like people leaving a mess. She said that she is mindful that the others may not have been raised the same way as her, but will often tell them or just end up cleaning the kitchen herself. Spoke to Dawn, who said that this is a continuous problem, and that they do try to deal with this regularly. [S] does not have unallocated work at the present time. But once she gets one, they will assess her independent living and will help her with this."
Under "Wider Family":
"[S] states that when she found out she was pregnant, her parents did not take it too well, and told her she had to leave. She said she had got to Aiden House through the Gateway. She states that the relationship has improved greatly since moving out, and her parents have been really supportive. [S] states that she will move in with them for awhile once the baby is born, so that she has good support."
Under "Housing":
"[S] is currently at Aiden House and will remain there until she is ready for independent living. [S] states that she does not like it, but understands the process."
Under "Emotional and Behavioural Development":
"…[S] appeared to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial