AT & Ors, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Islington

A local authority’s duty under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 does not ordinarily require it to provide particular services to meet assessed needs. A mandatory order may be made where a specific statutory duty is breached or the authority’s decision is unreasonable. The authority must, however, take reasonable steps to assess the needs of a child in need. Judicial review examines the lawfulness and adequacy of that assessment; it does not substitute the court’s assessment or require day-to-day supervision. Assessments should be read practically and need not contain contingency plans for every possible development. Resource implications may be considered. On the evidence, the current assessment adequately addressed the children’s needs, and no relief was justified.

The claimants challenged Islington’s discharge of duties concerning children’s services and housing. The first claimant’s two young children had significant disabilities, while the family lived in severely overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation. The proceedings initially raised issues under the Children Act 1989, Children Act 2004, Housing Act 1996 and Human Rights Act 1998.

At the urgent hearing, the housing issues and historical complaints were excluded. The question was whether the defendant remained in breach of its duties concerning the children, particularly whether its January 2013 core assessment was legally adequate and required declaratory or mandatory relief.

1. Disposition. Permission was formally granted because the issues had been fully argued, but the claim failed on its substance. Declaratory and mandatory relief concerning the continuing Children Acts issues was refused.
2. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 imposes no mandatory duty to take specific steps to satisfy the assessed needs of a child in need. An applicant seeking mandatory relief must identify a specific statutory duty or show that the authority’s decision not to take the proposed step was unreasonable: [2004] 2 AC 208.
3. There is an implied duty to take reasonable steps to assess the needs of a child in need. An inadequate failure to assess may justify a mandatory order. The assessment must have regard to imminent changes in the child’s circumstances: (2001) 4 CCLR 295; [2005] 2 FLR 860; [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin).
4. The assessment had to be read practically, against its factual setting, and for its substance rather than subjected to a lawyer’s line-by-line comparison with the Framework: [2011] UKSC 33; [2006] EWHC 639 (Admin). The local authority remained the primary decision-maker. The court’s role was review, not the making of its own assessment or supervision of social workers’ daily decisions.
5. The January assessment addressed the children’s disabilities, housing difficulties, support arrangements, safety concerns and the need for review. It was not legally defective because it did not predict the precise timing of rehousing, plan for every possible contingency, or guarantee suitable permanent accommodation. Resource-related difficulties did not, without more, establish a failure in the assessment process. The court therefore found no sufficient irrationality, unreasonableness or lack of proportionality under section 11 of the Children Act 2004.