Collins v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

A local authority may provide accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 by arranging for a child to remain with an existing temporary carer. A formal placement or an express request to assume care is unnecessary. The question is whether the authority played a central or major role in establishing the continuing arrangement.

Where a child in need requires accommodation because the existing carer cannot provide suitable care, the section 20 duty arises. If the authority then places the child with another suitable person under section 23(2), the child is looked after within section 22(1), with the accompanying duties and financial consequences.

The claimant, a child in need, had ceased living regularly with her stepfather and was staying temporarily with her boyfriend’s family. After she rejected a proposed foster placement, the council’s social worker discussed her wishes with Mrs Leyden, who agreed that the claimant could remain in her home. Although the council repeatedly proposed a planning meeting, no meeting took place. The claimant’s stepfather subsequently died.

The council maintained that it had neither provided accommodation under section 20 nor placed the claimant under section 23(2) of the Children Act 1989. The claimant sought judicial review of its decision that she was not a looked-after child. The central questions were whether the council had assumed a sufficient role in the accommodation arrangement and whether delay barred the claim.

1. The claim succeeded. The delay did not bar judicial review. Any unlawful failure to recognise the claimant as a looked-after child produced a continuing state of affairs. The parties had also remained in correspondence while the claimant sought reconsideration, and the delay caused no prejudice to the council or third parties.

2. By 26 November 2003 the claimant was a child in need who required accommodation. Her stepfather was prevented from providing suitable care. After his death, nobody had parental responsibility for her. The statutory circumstances requiring accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 were therefore present.

3. D v London Borough of Southwark [2007] 1 FLR 2181 was applied. There was no material distinction merely because the claimant was already staying temporarily with Mrs Leyden when the council became involved. The social worker ascertained the claimant’s wish to remain there, communicated that wish to Mrs Leyden and obtained her agreement. The council also intended to continue planning for the claimant’s future. It therefore played a central or major role in converting a temporary arrangement into an arrangement for continuing accommodation.

4. The council left Mrs Leyden in an unsatisfactory position. It provided only discretionary assistance under section 17 and encouraged her to claim benefits, but did not explain that it regarded the accommodation as a private arrangement carrying no obligation of financial support.

5. The council was under a duty to provide accommodation under section 20 and, on the facts, made a placement with Mrs Leyden under section 23(2). From 26 November 2003 the claimant was accordingly a child looked after by the council within section 22(1).

6. The claimant was entitled to a declaration of looked-after status from that date and an order requiring the council to pay Mrs Leyden the appropriate weekly allowance until the claimant’s eighteenth birthday. The precise form of relief and ancillary matters remained for further submissions.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. Wilkie J had granted permission and left the issue of delay for determination at the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court allowed the claim and granted declaratory and financial relief.