S, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lewisham & Ors

Under section 24(3) of the National Assistance Act 1948, a person with no settled residence is a person “in the area” of a local authority if physically present there when applying for accommodation and support. The statute does not require prior residence, temporary residence, or a sufficient local connection. This interpretation applies equally where the applicant is ordinarily resident elsewhere but is in urgent need. The authority of the moment must assess and, where the statutory conditions are met, provide support while responsibility is resolved. Guidance directing authorities to act promptly reflects the statutory scheme. A person cannot become “in the area” merely by writing from elsewhere, but actual presence when the application is made is sufficient.

The claimant required accommodation and support under sections 21 and 24 of the National Assistance Act 1948. She had no settled residence and was in urgent need. After staying temporarily in Hackney, she travelled to Lewisham and personally presented her application there. Lewisham, Hackney and Lambeth disputed responsibility. The Secretary of State later determined that she had no settled residence, and Lambeth ceased to be involved. The remaining issue was whether physical presence in Lewisham at the time of application made Lewisham responsible under section 24(3), or whether some prior residence or connection with the authority’s area was required.

The court gave judgment for Hackney on the issue of responsibility. The consequential question of costs was left for further consideration.

1. Section 24(3) of the National Assistance Act 1948 contains two alternative categories: persons with no settled residence, and persons ordinarily resident elsewhere who are in urgent need of accommodation. The words “a person in the area of a local authority” apply to both categories.
2. “In the area” bears its ordinary and literal meaning. A person with no settled residence who is physically present in the local authority’s area when making the application falls within section 24(3). Prior residence, temporary residence, being based in the area, or a local connection is not required.
3. This interpretation promotes certainty and avoids vulnerable applicants being left without accommodation while authorities dispute responsibility. The authority where the applicant presents himself or herself is the authority of the moment and must act, subject to the statutory requirement of urgent need and the ultimate determination of funding responsibility.
4. The guidance in Circulars LAC (93) 10 and LAC (93) 7 reflects the correct statutory interpretation and may properly, and ordinarily should, be followed. The guidance cannot alter the statute, but it appropriately directs authorities to assess and provide services before resolving ordinary-residence disputes.
5. Mohammed N was distinguishable. The applicants there were not physically present in Redbridge and had merely written from Camden. The observations relied upon by Lewisham did not establish that actual presence required prior residence or allowed an authority to refuse responsibility.

The court refused permission to appeal, considering the Act clear and the result consistent with the established guidance.