R U and U (by their Litigation Friend and Mother, BU) v Milton Keynes Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Markus |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 3050 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3972/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 29 November 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 3050 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE Markus QC
(Sitting as a High Court Judge)
Case No: CO/3972/2017
Mr J. Fraczyk (instructed by Bhatia Best, Solicitors) for the Claimants
Mr D. Carter (instructed by Director of Legal Services, MKC) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 4 October 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Markus QC:
Introduction
The Claimants are children aged (at the time of the hearing) 7 and 8 years respectively. They live with their mother, BU. They are Nigerian nationals, and came to the UK some time between 2011 and August 2014. They originally had leave to enter as visitors but that leave expired and during the period material to the present proceedings they have not had leave to remain in the UK. In consequence they have no recourse to public funds and BU does not have the right to work. On 15 November 2016 BU applied for leave for herself and the children to remain in the UK but that application has not yet been determined.
In March 2017 the Defendant local authority had carried out an assessment of the Claimants' needs under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and decided that they were not children in need and therefore that the Defendant would not provide accommodation and support to the Claimants' along with BU. In these proceedings the Claimants, through BU who is their litigation friend, challenge the refusal of the Defendant local authority to carry out a reassessment of their needs under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and to provide accommodation to them. On 6 th September 2017 Dinah Rose QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, gave the Claimants permission to proceed with their claim and ordered that the Defendant secure accommodation for the family until the hearing of the claim or further order.
The hearing of the claim was listed for half a day on 4 October 2017. This was insufficient time for the parties to make their submissions as fully as was appropriate, even in a tightly managed hearing, particularly because of the close attention to the factual detail which was required. I directed counsel to make further written submission. I ordered that the interim relief should continue until I decided the claim or further order. The parties have provided further sequential written submission in accordance with those directions. This explains the length of time between the hearing and judgment.
I have made an order that no information should be disclosed which identifies the Claimants, in order to protect their identities. To the same end, in this judgment I have anonymised other individuals where appropriate.
Factual summary
Since the family entered the UK, according to BU they had lived with various family and friends. They had sought assistance from the British Red Cross in December 2016, claiming to be destitute. BU approached the Defendant for assistance on around 10 January 2017. She said that the family had been living with a Mr O but the house had been sold and that they would no longer be able to live there. On 18 January the Defendant provided temporary accommodation for the family pending an assessment of the children's needs under the Children Act 1989.
On 19 January the Defendant completed an assessment which recorded what BU had told the social workers including: that some friends in the UK had been helping her; she had a husband and family in Nigeria but was not in contact with them very often and he had stopped providing support for the children some time ago; she had had one short relationship since being in the UK but was currently single; she had a "non-biological aunt" (Esther) in London with whom the family had stayed when they first arrived in the UK, and a step-brother in Peterborough who had refused to help her in the past. In terms of accommodation, she said the family had been staying with friends who were contacts made through the church and through "friends of friends". They had moved between various friends including one called Clara. BU said that for the last six months they had been staying with Mr O in Heelands. The social worker observed that there was a gap of six months in respect of which BU could not remember where they had been living.
BU had explained that she had received help from friends with food and clothing in addition to accommodation. She had supplemented this with braiding people's hair for which she was paid between £10 and £20 each time, around three or four times a week. She said she did it at people's homes. She told the social worker that she could not provide bank statements as she did not have a bank account but that she used an online system called CashPlus.
The assessment noted that there remained some unanswered questions. In particular information was awaited from the Home Office, there were gaps and anomalies in the information regarding where she had previously lived, evidence of her online account had not been seen, BU's husband had not answered calls, and BU had been asked to provide information about attempts to arrange her own accommodation. The decision was therefore to provide support "whilst assessments are completed" and the assessment recorded that BU should continue to seek accommodation for the family with friends.
The Defendant completed a second assessment on 23 March 2017. BU had told the social worker that her friends were no longer prepared to support her and that, without local authority support, the family would be on the street. It was noted in the assessment that there were concerns that BU had not been forthcoming with information, and it also noted a number of inquiries which had been made by the social worker since the last assessment. The Home Office had provided information that in 2011 BU had been sponsored to come to the UK by Esther who claimed to be BU's aunt. The social worker thought it was doubtful that BU would have waited until 2014 (as she had claimed) before coming to the UK. The Home Office also confirmed that BU had paid a Home Office application fee of £2433 in November 2016. On 1 August 2016 the Home Office had been notified that BU had made an application to marry a Romanian. The registry office confirmed that an application had been made. BU had not told the local authority about that and, when contacted by the social worker on 17 March, BU had denied that she had planned to get married. The assessment also noted that the registry office stated that they had seen documents showing BU was divorced from her husband in Nigeria and yet during the original assessment she had stated that she was still married to him.
The assessment included a record of a meeting that took place on 22 March including the following:
"[BU] said she had initially come to England in 2007 and was unclear that her aunt sponsored her visa in 2011…. It was explained to [BU] that the Local Authority required an accurate picture of her circumstances before decisions can be made to continue funding her family.
I asked [BU] for details of her aunt Esther … in London however [BU] said she did not have her aunt's details. [BU] was again asked how she supported herself since 2014 and said she braided hair whilst in Peterborough. [BU] kept answering "no comment" to further questions about her hair dressing work. She did not respond to questions to how much she made from each job and whether she worked out of a hair salon or independently.
[BU] said that she did not know what to say and at one point stated that she did not want to answer too many questions to complicate matters.
It was the view of both social workers that [BU] was not being forthcoming with information as she kept saying "no comment" to questions."
Under the heading "General concerns regarding Inconsistencies in [BU's] statements" the assessment noted the following:
i) She was sponsored to come to the UK in 2011 by Esther who was listed as her aunt on the visa application. In the first assessment BU claimed to have no biological family in the UK but when presented with the information regarding her visa application she admitted that Esther was her father's sister. She said that she was not in contact with Esther and they were not on speaking terms.
ii) BU had not disclosed that she was divorced from her husband nor that she had applied to marry a Romanian national.
iii) BU had not been able to provide any further information to explain the 6–7 month period when she could not remember where she had been living with her children.
iv) She was not forthcoming when interviewed by social workers.
The conclusion of the assessment was that the family was not destitute and did not need support under section 17 Children Act because they had other sources of support. The reasons were:
"a) the family has been supported by friends since at least 2014 and probably earlier as [BU] was granted a visa to visit the UK on 11.11.11. Her paternal aunt lives in London and sponsored her visa. [BU] declined to provide contact details for her aunt.
b) [BU] remains in contact with Mr [O] who previously provided her with accommodation. She had to leave this property as it had been sold but Mr [O] remains living in Milton Keynes. He has also assisted with the payment of [BU's] application fee to the Home Office for leave to remain.
c) [BU] has family in Nigeria including the children's father who remains in regular contact. He has provided financial support in the past. It is unclear why this ceased as it appears he remains in work.
d) [BU] has had significant sums of money in her bank account in the past including apparent payment of "rent" to Mr [O]. It is not clear what the source of...
To continue reading
Request your trial