C, T, M & U, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Southwark

Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 gives a local authority broad discretion over the form and amount of support provided to children in need. Judicial review examines the lawfulness of the assessment and decision-making process, rather than substituting the court’s view of the appropriate sum or accommodation. A detailed, case-sensitive and periodically reviewed assessment may lawfully determine support by reference to the children’s actual essential needs. A separate assessment of the impact of relocation is not always required where existing assessments address the children’s welfare and the parent agrees to the move. Bed and breakfast accommodation for a prolonged period is regrettable and potentially adverse, but is not necessarily unlawful where the authority acts reasonably in difficult circumstances and continues to meet the children’s needs.

The claimants were a mother and her dependent children, who had no recourse to public funds because of the mother’s immigration status. Following threatened eviction, Southwark accepted responsibility under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and provided accommodation, subsistence payments and travel support.

The claim challenged the adequacy of the assessments, the level of financial support, the suitability and duration of bed and breakfast accommodation, the relocation of the family outside London without a dedicated impact assessment, the withdrawal of holiday travel support, and alleged breaches of Convention rights. The central issues were whether the authority had acted unlawfully in discharging its section 17 duties and whether damages or further relief were justified.

The claim for judicial review failed.

1. Assessment and financial support. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 confers a broad discretion over the type and amount of support. The court reviews the lawfulness of the process, not the merits of the sum chosen. Southwark had carried out detailed, case-sensitive assessments addressing the children’s circumstances, accommodation, education, health and essential expenditure. The assessments responded to changing circumstances and were kept under review. Any reference to child benefit rates was a comparison appearing in the defence, not the basis of the assessments. The process was not improper, unfair or irrational, and the children’s essential needs were met.
2. Relocation. Section 17 did not require a separate assessment of the impact of moving the family away from London. The periodic assessments had focused on the children’s welfare, accommodation and education. In light of those assessments and the mother’s agreement to relocation, no dedicated assessment was essential.
3. Holiday travel. The authority acted within its discretion in withdrawing the mother’s additional bus-pass support during school holidays. The decision was reasonable, although somewhat harsh.
4. Bed and breakfast accommodation. The accommodation was inappropriate for a mother and three young children for anything longer than a few weeks. Nevertheless, the authority had not breached statutory guidance. LAC (2003) 13 was not shown to be statutory guidance and, in any event, merely stated that referral to the Homelessness Code of Guidance might be helpful. The accommodation was regrettable but, given the shortage of suitable accommodation, the family’s local ties, available alternatives and the mother’s preference, it was not unlawful.
5. Further relief and damages. No fresh assessment or damages for breach of Article 8 were justified. The family’s essential needs had been met, and later increases in family size did not establish a material public law error.