AT & Ors v London Borough Of Islington

A local authority’s child-in-need assessment is reviewed for legality; the court does not substitute its own assessment or require a line-by-line comparison with statutory guidance. The assessment need not guarantee a particular housing outcome, specify an accurate rehousing timetable, or provide services outside the assessor’s control. It is sufficient that it identifies the housing problem, the need for rehousing, and the need for liaison with the authority’s housing officials. The assessment duty does not require the Children’s Service to produce accommodation which is controlled by another part of the authority.

The applicants sought judicial review of alleged failures by the respondent to assess the needs of two children in need under the Children Act 1989 and Children Act 2004. They also raised housing issues under Parts 6 and 7, and section 184, of the Housing Act 1996. At an expedited hearing, the housing issues and historical complaints were left undetermined. The High Court considered whether the respondent’s latest general assessment lawfully addressed the children’s housing-related needs and dismissed that part of the claim. The renewed application concerned whether the assessment required a specific rehousing timetable or detailed operational plan.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.
2. The primary decision-maker in assessing children in need is the local authority. The court’s function on judicial review is supervisory. It must review the legality of the assessment rather than make its own assessment of the children’s best interests.
3. The principles identified by Munby J in R(B) v Lambeth LBC [2006] EWHC 639 (Admin) were applicable. A core assessment should not be subjected to a line-by-line comparison with the relevant framework in order to identify trivial differences and construct grounds for judicial review.
4. The assessment was adequate under the Children Act 1989 and Children Act 2004. It clearly identified the severe housing problem, the need for rehousing, and the need for the authority’s Children’s Service to liaise with housing officials.
5. The assessor could not accurately predict what housing outcome could be achieved because suitable accommodation was not within the assessor’s control. The statutory assessment duty did not require the production of suitable permanent accommodation, a guaranteed result, or a precise rehousing timetable. The court rejected the submission that a detailed operational plan was required on these facts.
6. Continuing action remained necessary, but later events were irrelevant to the correctness of the Deputy Judge’s decision. The formal order was that the application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 14 June 2013, the court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal: [2013] EWCA Civ 1505.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Mr Philip Mott QC dismissed the relevant part of the judicial review claim on 1 February 2013, holding that the latest general assessment satisfied the applicable statutory duties.