C, R (on the application of) v Nottingham City Council

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, the court need only decide whether the proposed grounds are reasonably arguable. It need not finally determine disputed questions about whether young people were children in need or were prevented from living at home under section 20(1)(c) of the Children Act 1989.

Where a local authority knows of circumstances arguably triggering its section 20 duty and accommodation is supplied by its housing department under housing legislation, it is arguable that the accommodation may be treated as provided under section 20. The issue may lie between cases where social services had no relevant knowledge and cases where social services arranged or encouraged the accommodation.

Two young people sought to establish that they were former relevant children. They contended that, while aged 16 or 17, they had been accommodated by the local authority for at least 13 weeks pursuant to its duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. They relied on the alleged breakdown of their parental relationships, the authority’s knowledge of their circumstances, and accommodation supplied by its housing department.

The High Court, presided over by His Honour Judge Inglis, refused permission to appeal on the proposed attribution of the accommodation to the authority’s section 20 duty. Permission was first refused on paper by Moses LJ. The Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed issue was reasonably arguable and granted permission.

1. Permission granted. The renewed application concerned whether accommodation supplied by a local authority’s housing department could be deemed accommodation provided under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 where the authority knew of circumstances arguably giving rise to the duty.
2. The court was not required at the permission stage to resolve whether the claimants were children in need or whether they were prevented from living at home within section 20(1)(c). Those were serious and arguable questions. A broad interpretation of section 20(1)(c) made the latter contention reasonably arguable.
3. The authorities identified two ends of the relevant spectrum. In R(M) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2008] UKHL 14, the children’s services department had no knowledge of the children’s position, and the accommodation was not attributed to the authority as accommodation provided under section 20. In R(G) v Southwark LBC [2009] UKHL 26, the children’s services department had effectively arranged or encouraged accommodation supplied by the housing department, and the accommodation was treated as provided under section 20.
4. The present case arguably fell between those situations. The proposed issue was whether knowledge by the local authority of the circumstances giving rise to a section 20 duty, coupled with accommodation supplied by a separate department under housing legislation, was sufficient for attribution under section 20. That wider issue justified permission even though the authority offered assistance which might otherwise have made the appeal academic.
5. The court recognised the resource consequences of granting permission but considered that the legal entitlement and status claimed by the appellants should be capable of determination. The protocol point was not considered a suitable issue for the Court of Appeal. Order: application granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 March 2010, the court granted a renewed application for permission to appeal.
• High Court of Justice, Administrative Court: His Honour Judge Inglis decided on 12 October 2009 that the proposed attribution of the accommodation to the authority’s duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 was not reasonably arguable.
• Permission stage: Moses LJ had previously refused permission on paper.