AM, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Havering & Ors

The primary duty to assess whether a homeless child is a child in need falls on the local authority in whose area the child is physically present, even where the presence is temporary. More than one authority may owe duties simultaneously. Housing duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 remain distinct and may continue to rest with the originating housing authority.

Authorities must co-operate and must not leave vulnerable families without support while disputing responsibility. A housing authority must give prompt notice of an out-of-area placement and provide relevant information. Where a children’s services authority has begun an assessment, it must act reasonably before abandoning or transferring it.

AM and his family were homeless and had been placed by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in temporary accommodation within the area of the London Borough of Havering. The family included two young children, one of whom had epilepsy, and there were concerns about domestic abuse, parental wellbeing and impending eviction.

Tower Hamlets’ housing department referred the family to its own children’s services department, which began an assessment but then stopped it after advising that Havering was responsible. Havering declined to assess the children, relying principally on the family’s ordinary residence and its connection with Tower Hamlets. The claim concerned which authority owed duties to assess the children, provide interim accommodation and make effective referrals.

1. Assessment responsibility. The duty under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, read with Schedule 2, paragraph 3, primarily fell on Havering because the children were physically present within its area when the duty arose. Temporary presence was sufficient. The family’s ordinary residence and a brief visit to Tower Hamlets did not displace that conclusion.
2. Concurrent responsibilities. More than one authority may owe duties under Part III of the Children Act 1989 at the same time. Tower Hamlets also acquired a public law obligation to act reasonably after commencing its assessment. It should have completed the assessment, or offered to complete it for Havering, rather than abruptly abandoning the family.
3. Threshold for assessment. The threshold under Schedule 2, paragraph 3 was low. Homelessness itself could establish that a child was in need. The evidence of homelessness, potential safeguarding concerns, parental depression, alleged domestic abuse, epilepsy and the children’s ages made Havering’s conclusion that the children did not appear to be in need unsustainable and irrational.
4. Housing and referrals. The primary duty to provide short-term accommodation remained with Tower Hamlets under sections 188 and 190(2)(a) of the Housing Act 1996. Tower Hamlets also breached sections 208 and 213A by failing to notify Havering promptly of the placement, provide relevant information and make a lawful, timely referral. Section 213A complemented rather than displaced the duties under Part III of the Children Act 1989.
5. Disposition. Havering’s failure to assess was declared unlawful and its refusal was quashed. Tower Hamlets’ failures to notify, refer and secure accommodation pending assessment were also declared unlawful. Reimbursement between the defendants was reserved.