Jalal, R (On the Application Of) v Royal Borough of Greenwich

Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 confers a power, rather than an enforceable duty, to provide services or accommodation. Its exercise requires careful and conscientious consideration of the individual facts and may be challenged on ordinary public law grounds, including irrationality and proportionality.

A local authority may consider how a family became homeless and whether the parents had a reasonable opportunity to secure accommodation. A passage of time does not necessarily require a wholesale reassessment where the underlying circumstances remain materially unchanged. An assessment may instead be reviewed and revised. Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 adds nothing material to the Article 8 analysis in this context.

The claimant, who had four dependent children, challenged the defendant local authority’s refusal to secure accommodation under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The family had been found intentionally homeless and was due to leave temporary accommodation. The claimant argued that the refusal was irrational because the children had no alternative accommodation, that the authority had acted unfairly in questioning his account of his housing efforts, and that reliance on possible accommodation of the children separately breached Article 8 ECHR read with section 11 of the Children Act 2004.

An alternative challenge under section 190(2) of the Housing Act 1996 was not pursued. Interim relief preserved the family’s temporary accommodation pending the final hearing.

1. The application was dismissed. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 gives a local authority a power to provide assistance, including accommodation, rather than an enforceable duty to meet every assessed need. A refusal may nevertheless be challenged on ordinary reasonableness and proportionality grounds. The decision requires careful and conscientious consideration, with close attention to the facts of the individual case and the applicable statutory guidance.
2. The authority was entitled to consider whether the claimant had had a sufficient opportunity to secure alternative accommodation. The fact that the children would otherwise lack accommodation did not require the authority to disregard the family’s previous circumstances, including the available resources, the time elapsed and the efforts made to obtain housing. The authority’s conclusion was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable.
3. The circumstances did not materially change merely because time had passed and the temporary accommodation had ended. The statutory guidance contemplated review and revision of an assessment as circumstances developed. It did not require a wholesale reassessment on these facts. The authority’s later decision amounted to a sufficient review of its earlier assessment.
4. The authority’s treatment of the claimant’s account did not involve procedural unfairness. The letter was properly understood as identifying insufficient evidence to establish that all reasonable efforts had been made, rather than rejecting the claimant’s honesty. The court had to determine for itself whether a fair procedure had been followed, but that requirement was satisfied. In any event, relief would have been refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 because further representations were highly unlikely to have produced a different outcome.
5. Although welfare support may in principle engage Article 8 ECHR, the circumstances did not require accommodation for the family as a unit. The proposed possibility of accommodating the children without the parents was not unlawful. Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 added nothing material to the Article 8 analysis. Accommodation already provided for about ten months was sufficient to discharge the authority’s obligation under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, as identified in the judgment.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission was granted on 21 March 2016 and interim relief was granted on 5 February 2016. The final application was dismissed.