A, R (on the application of) v Coventry City Council

Under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, accommodation for a child in need must be suitable, including sufficiently secure for the likely duration. Accommodation dependent on precarious private funding may be unsuitable. A local authority may distinguish a need for accommodation from a need for help with accommodation under section 17, but it must make a free-standing welfare decision and must not let cost determine the outcome. The child’s wishes and the availability of other accommodation are relevant. A council’s conduct can amount to exercising its statutory accommodation functions where it leads a proposed carer reasonably to expect public financial support and fails to explain that a private foster arrangement requires reliance on the parent or the carer’s own resources. A decision based on the contrary assumption cannot stand.

A 15-year-old child left his father’s home and was taken in by an unrelated adult, who told the Council that she could not continue without financial assistance. The Council did not make a timely assessment or a formal decision under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. It later treated the arrangement as private fostering and said that the father was responsible for support, while providing limited assistance under section 17.

The claimant sought judicial review of that approach. The central issues were whether the Council’s conduct amounted to arranging accommodation under sections 20 and 23, whether the accommodation was suitable and secure, and, if the Council had done nothing, whether its refusal to provide accommodation was reasonably open to it.

Claim succeeded. The Council’s conduct was treated as an exercise of its statutory functions, and its later decision was made on a false premise. The court declared that the claimant had been a looked-after child from 21 June 2007 and ordered payment of the appropriate weekly allowance until his eighteenth birthday.

1. Statutory framework. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a specific accommodation duty where a child in need appears to require suitable accommodation for one of the statutory reasons. Section 17 imposes a general welfare duty and permits discretionary assistance, including accommodation or cash in exceptional circumstances. Following the introduction of the power to provide accommodation under section 17, the question whether accommodation is required under section 20 is a free-standing evaluative decision. It must be based on the child’s needs, including known wishes and available alternatives, and must not be driven by cost. The distinction between accommodation and help with accommodation identified in R (G) v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 877 was accepted, but was relevant only to the alternative analysis.
2. Private fostering. Following London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182, a local authority must make the nature and financial consequences of a private fostering arrangement clear. If its conduct leads the proposed carer to believe that public financial support will be available, the authority may be treated as exercising its statutory functions under sections 20 and 23. The approach in Sarah Jane Collins v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2551 (Admin) was followed.
3. Application. The Council had not made a formal decision, but Ms Casey had been led to expect financial assistance and was not told that she would have to support the claimant herself or look to his father. The Council was therefore taken to have arranged accommodation at its own expense from 21 June 2007. A 15-year-old could not make a binding private fostering arrangement, and the father had made no such arrangement. In any event, accommodation dependent on uncertain funding was too precarious to be suitable for a child in need of that age. The Council’s contrary decision was based on the false assumption of a private fostering arrangement and could not stand.
4. Orders. The claimant was declared to have been a child looked after by the Council within section 22. The Council was ordered to pay the appropriate allowance to Ms Casey, with specified rent and council tax concessions treated as payments on account. Costs and the precise form of relief were reserved.