Walker v London Borough Of Lambeth

Where a local authority accepts that assistance may be available to persons in a claimant’s position, it must assess each case on its individual merits. Limited resources do not remove the need for an adequate and sufficiently careful assessment. An assessment based on indirect questions about whether family members could provide accommodation may be arguable where it does not allow the claimant to explain the reality of the available support. The proper statutory framework must also be identified, including whether assistance may be considered under Section 2 of the Local Government Act and Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Permission was therefore granted and the substantive judicial review was directed to be heard by the Court of Appeal.

The claimant had become intentionally homeless and sought assistance from the London Borough of Lambeth. The authority initially considered that it could not assist under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, having regard to the decision in A [2001] EWCA (Civil) 1624. An officer interviewed the claimant and made a professional assessment, but did not directly ask whether family members could provide accommodation. A later reassessment relied substantially on the earlier information and did not address the claimant’s subsequent attempts to obtain loans or charitable assistance.

Mr Justice Maurice Kay refused permission to seek judicial review. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the claimant had an arguable case concerning the adequacy of the assessment and whether the correct statutory framework had been applied.

1. Application allowed. The claimant had an arguable case concerning the assessment carried out by the local authority.
2. A local authority’s limited resources and the breadth of the class of persons seeking assistance did not justify treating all cases alike. Once it was accepted that assistance might be available to some persons in the claimant’s position, each case required consideration on its individual merits.
3. The assessment was arguably inadequate. The officer had deliberately avoided asking directly whether family members could provide accommodation, relying instead on surrounding questions to form a professional assessment. That approach arguably denied the claimant a proper opportunity to explain the extent to which her family could, in reality, support her.
4. The later reassessment was also arguably incomplete because it relied on earlier information and did not take account of the claimant’s intervening attempts to obtain assistance through budgeting loans, crisis loans or charitable grants.
5. The legal framework required clarification. Section 2 of the Local Government Act might provide a power to assist persons in the claimant’s position, but the court also identified the claimant’s contention that assistance could be considered under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, despite A [2001] EWCA (Civil) 1624. That issue was sufficiently relevant to warrant authoritative guidance before any reassessment.
6. The Court of Appeal exercised its power to grant permission and directed that the substantive judicial review hearing should take place before the Court of Appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): granted permission to seek judicial review and directed that the substantive hearing be conducted by the Court of Appeal.
• High Court: Mr Justice Maurice Kay refused permission to seek judicial review on 24 January 2002.