AH, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council

Section 20(1)(c) of the Children Act 1989 requires a local authority to make an evaluative judgment whether a child appears to require accommodation as a result of the person caring for him being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care. A breakdown in family relations may satisfy the provision, but it does not do so automatically. The authority must assess the whole circumstances, including whether the move reflects a wish for independent living. Under section 20(6), the child’s wishes and feelings require due consideration, but they are not determinative. An initial assessment need not invariably progress to a core assessment. Judicial review is not ordinarily the forum for resolving disputed facts. Housing duties must nevertheless be considered promptly and should not be paralysed by an unresolved section 20 claim.

The claimant was aged 17 when he left his family home following conflict with his mother. He lived successively in supported accommodation, with his girlfriend’s parents and in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Cornwall Council assessed him in March 2010, concluded that he was a child in need, but decided that section 20(1)(c) was not satisfied. It offered residential accommodation and remained willing to reassess him.

The claimant sought judicial review of the alleged failure to accommodate him under section 20, the alleged inadequacy of the assessment, the alleged policy of diverting homeless young people to housing services, and the alleged failure to address his homelessness application. By the hearing he was 18, but claimed consequential leaving-care rights. The central issues were whether the authority’s evaluative judgment and assessment were unlawful, whether his wishes required independent accommodation, and whether the housing duties had been unlawfully neglected.

1. Permission and disposition. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, but the claim and all relief sought were dismissed.
2. Section 20(1)(c). The statutory duty involves a series of evaluative judgments by the local authority, including whether the applicant is a child in need, appears to require accommodation, and requires it as a result of the carer being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care. The word “prevented” has a broad meaning. It may include circumstances in which family members are so incompatible that they cannot live together. It does not, however, make every decision by a young person to leave home sufficient. The authority was entitled to conclude that the claimant’s predominant reason for leaving was his wish to live independently.
3. Wishes and feelings. Section 20(6) requires the authority, so far as reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare, to ascertain and give due consideration to the child’s wishes and feelings. It does not require the authority to provide the accommodation chosen by the child. The authority was entitled to consider residential accommodation, including Pendean, for assessment and transition to independence, and its refusal to disapply the unit’s rules was not outside the reasonable range of responses.
4. Assessment and judicial review. The March assessment complied with the applicable framework. There was no legal requirement that every initial assessment proceed to a core assessment. The authority was entitled to evaluate the evidence and decide what further assessment was required. The disputed evidence about the claimant’s willingness to accept accommodation and the suitability of placements did not require fact-finding in judicial review proceedings.
5. Housing duties. If section 20(1)(c) did not apply, the claimant was in priority need under the homelessness provisions. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation was unsuitable except on a highly temporary basis, but the authority had not unlawfully failed to consider its housing duties. The court strongly recommended that a housing department should not allow an unresolved section 20 dispute to delay the prompt resolution of a homeless young person’s accommodation needs.
6. Human rights claim. Even if there had been an unlawfulness under the statutory scheme, damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 were not necessary to afford just satisfaction, given the authority’s conscientious conduct.