A Claimant v LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD (2016) The applicant (a teenager) sought to challenge the defendant local authority’s decision not to provide her with accommodation under s.20 Children Act 1989. As a 16 & 17 year old, C had a volatile relationship with her family. Repeated concerns had been raised about C around risks […]
A Claimant v LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD (2016) Read More »
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/702.html This case concerned an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings on behalf of W, the claimant, against the London Borough of Lambeth, the defendant. W became homeless around the time of her 17th birthday when her relationship with her mother, which had been fractious throughout her life, completely broke down. The crux
A woman and her children were homeless, and the council found the woman to have intentionally made herself so. The council declined to provide alternative assistance under the Children Act, because of the effect of Lambeth LBC ex p A (finding that there is no power to provide housing to parents, under s17, on the
Walker v Lambeth LBC (judgment 8 March 2002) (CA) Read More »
The claimant (M) applied for judicial review of a decision of the defendant local authority to provide her with temporary accommodation under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002, and sought a declaration that she was a “former relevant child” under the Children Act 1989 s.23C and the
This is an important ruling from the House of Lords setting out the relevant factors local authorities must consider when seeking to exercise their functions in relation to providing or assisting young people to find suitable accommodation. Changes to the Housing Act 1996 bought in by the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002
R (on the application of G) v Southwark London Borough Council (2009) UKHL 26 Read More »
R (D by his litigation friend SA) v Brent Council [2015] Keywords: Assessment, Time limits D was a 23-year-old with autistic spectrum disorder and severe communication difficulties who was described as vulnerable. He had attended a residential special school until July 2015. On 8th May 2015, Brent Council had assessed D as having a need
R (D by his litigation friend SA) v Brent Council [2015] Read More »
This case involved an appeal by the London Borough of Southwark against a decision by the High Court that it had looked after a child (S) pursuant to its statutory powers and duties under Part III of the Children Act 1989 and that Southwark was accordingly obliged to pay for S’s accommodation and maintenance which
London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182 Read More »
This case involved consideration of the legal estate given to a 16-17 year old accommodated by a local authority under the duties as set out in s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The appellant (E) had originally been granted a ‘non-secure’ tenancy under a written agreement when aged 16. Following complaints about her behaviour in
Elyarna Alexander-David v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC (2009) EWCA Civ 259 Read More »
Absolute duty – target duty – Children Act 1989 – accommodation The duty owed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 is a target duty owed to children in general, and is not enforceable by judicial review. It is to be distinguished from a specific duty, such as that in s20. The court has
A v Lambeth London Borough Council (The Times, 25 November 2001) (CA) Read More »