The King (on the application of BLZ) v Leeds City Council

Hearing dates: 28 & 29.11.24

Further written submissions: 6 & 11.12.24, 5.12.24

Draft judgment: 17.1.25

Approved Judgment

Note: This judgment was handed-down virtually at 10am on 29.1.25 by circulation to the parties and uploading to the National Archives.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is about the approach of a local authority to the care and support needs of a foreign national offender (“FNO”) who is in Home Office Bail Accommodation (“HOBA”). It raises interrelated questions about: (1) when in law a local authority must provide accommodation to meet care and support needs; and (2) whether in law a local authority must treat HOBA as “residual” and “legally irrelevant”. Local authority provision to meet care and support needs is governed by the Care Act 2014; the Care and Support (Assessment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2847); the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/313); and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance (5.10.23) which a local authority must “act under” when it is exercising its functions (2014 Act s.78(1)). HOBA is governed by Sch 10 §9 to the Immigration Act 2016, together with the Immigration Bail Interim Guidance. This judgment is the second in a pair. I heard two claims for judicial review arising out of the same background facts. My judgment in the linked claim against the Home Secretary (SSHD) is BLZ No.1 [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin). There are an anonymity order and reporting restrictions in both claims, for reasons explained in BLZ No.1 at §60. Everything in this second claim, against Leeds City Council (“LCC”), really stems from the transfer of the Claimant by the SSHD on 20.9.23, from HOBA at Willow Lane in Huddlesfield to HOBA at Rokeby Gardens in Leeds.

The Issues

The issues identified by the parties in this claim came to this:

Issue (1). Residuality and Legal Irrelevancy. (1a) Is HOBA provided by the SSHD under Sch 10 §9 to the 2016 Act “residual”? (1b) If so, did LCC misdirect itself in law in taking account of accommodation provided by the SSHD under Sch 10 §9 when assessing the Claimant's eligible needs for care and support, including his “accommodation-related” needs under the 2014 Act? Issue (2). Misdirection. In conducting its assessments of the Claimant's needs for care and support under the 2014 Act, did LCC misdirect itself in law in deciding whether it had a duty to accommodate the Claimant: (2a) By asking itself which of the Claimant's needs were not being met in the existing accommodation (provided in this case by the SSHD), instead of asking itself what the Claimant's needs were for the purposes of Part 1 of the 2014 Act? (2b) By misdirecting itself as to what constitutes “eligible needs”, “care and support” and “accommodation-related” needs within the meaning of the 2014 Act? (2c) By failing to address the evidence of his needs? (2d) In focusing on whether the Claimant required supported living accommodation (specialist accommodation) to the exclusion of other forms of accommodation? Issue (3). Lawfulness and Reasonableness. Did LCC act lawfully and reasonably in the assessments of the Claimant's needs?

That means nine breaches of the law are being alleged: misdirection by taking into account residual HOBA (Issue (1b)); misdirection as to “met” needs (Issue (2a); misdirection as to “eligible needs” (first part of Issue (2b)); misdirection as to “care and support” needs (second part of Issue (2b)); misdirection as to “accommodation-related” needs (third part of Issue (2b)); misdirection by failing to address evidence (Issue (2c)); misdirection by focusing on specialist accommodation (Issue (2d)); unlawful assessments (first part of Issue (3)); unreasonable assessments (second part of Issue (3)).

Resolution of HRA Issues

The parties had also identified these issues under the Human Rights Act 1998 ( HRA):

Issue (4). HRA. Did LCC breach the Claimant's substantive Article 3 and/or 8 ECHR rights between 29 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. (4a) Did the level of the Claimant's suffering or indignity during that period cross the severity threshold for constituting “degrading treatment” under Article 3 ECHR? (4b) If so, is LCC responsible? (4c) Further or alternatively, was the treatment of the Claimant during the relevant period a disproportionate interference with his private life as protected by Article 8 ECHR? (4d) If so, is LCC responsible?

The specified period (29.9.23 to 22.12.23) limits these HRA issues to the position while the Claimant was at Rokeby Gardens (from 20.9.23), with a set of stairs outside his bedroom. The date of 29.9.23 is when the Claimant's solicitors wrote to LCC drawing attention to that situation. Included is a period of “confined living”, between the date of the Claimant's hospital discharge (27.10.23) to the date when he was transferred from Rokeby Gardens (22.12.23). The Claimant cannot succeed against LCC on these human rights issues. They stand resolved by BLZ No.1. Included within Issue (4d) of BLZ No.1 was the claim that the conditions at Rokeby Gardens from 20.9.23 to 22.12.23 crossed the relevant thresholds to constitute violations of Article 3 and Article 8, for which the SSHD was said to be responsible. The parties were agreed that I should deliberate and rule on BLZ No.1 only after the conclusion of the hearing of this second claim, and having considered all the evidence and arguments. Having taken that course, I have analysed the position in detail in BLZ No.1 at §§26–27, 31, 54–59, 81–84. I have explained that the conditions experienced by the Claimant at Rokeby Gardens did not cross the relevant thresholds to constitute substantive violations of his Article 3 or Article 8 rights. In those circumstances there is no room – as a matter of legal logic – on which an Article 3 or 8 claim against LCC can succeed.

Regulation 2 Eligibility

The criteria for eligible care and support needs are found in reg.2 of the 2015 Regulations:

2. Needs which meet the eligibility criteria: adults who need care and support. (1) An adult's needs meet the eligibility criteria if – (a) the adult's needs arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness; (b) as a result of the adult's needs the adult is unable to achieve two or more of the outcomes specified in paragraph (2); and (c) as a consequence there is, or is likely to be, a significant impact on the adult's well-being. (2) The specified outcomes are – (a) managing and maintaining nutrition; (b) maintaining personal hygiene; (c) managing toilet needs; (d) being appropriately clothed; (e) being able to make use of the adult's home safely; (f) maintaining a habitable home environment; (g) developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships; (h) accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering; (i) making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community including public transport, and recreational facilities or services; and (j) carrying out any caring responsibilities the adult has for a child. (3) For the purposes of this regulation an adult is to be regarded as being unable to achieve an outcome if the adult – (a) is unable to achieve it without assistance; (b) is able to achieve it without assistance but doing so causes the adult significant pain, distress or anxiety; (c) is able to achieve it without assistance but doing so endangers or is likely to endanger the health or safety of the adult, or of others; or (d) is able to achieve it without assistance but takes significantly longer than would normally be expected. (4) Where the level of an adult's needs fluctuates, in determining whether the adult's needs meet the eligibility criteria, the local authority must take into account the adult's circumstances over such period as it considers necessary to establish accurately the adult's level of need .

I pause to note that eligibility criteria reg.2(2)(e) and (f) presuppose that the relevant person has a “home”.

Section 1 Well-being

Reg.2(1)(c) refers to impact on “well-being”. That links to s.1(1)-(3) of the 2014 Act:

1. Promoting individual well-being. (1) The general duty of a local authority, in exercising a function under this Part in the case of an individual, is to promote that individual's well-being. (2) “Well-being”, in relation to an individual, means that individual's well-being so far as relating to any of the following – (a) personal dignity (including treatment of the individual with respect); (b) physical and mental health and emotional well-being; (c) protection from abuse and neglect; (d) control by the individual over day-to-day life (including over care and support, or support, provided to the individual and the way in which it is provided); (e) participation in work, education, training or recreation; (f) social and economic well-being; (g) domestic, family and personal relationships; (h) suitability of living accommodation; (i) the individual's contribution to society. (3) In exercising a function under this Part in the case of an individual, a local authority must have regard to the following matters in particular – (a) the importance of...