M and A v London Borough of Islington

Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 does not apply directly between departments of a unitary authority. However, the authority must operate equivalent arrangements so that its housing and children’s services departments co-operate to safeguard children in need. Guidance cannot alter the statutory meaning, but may properly require equivalent departmental co-operation. A lawful system must assess safety risks, involve the relevant services, consider suitable accommodation and available priorities, and review the position as circumstances change. Judicial review does not require a particular housing outcome where the system is lawful and its application is not irrational.

Two severely autistic children sought judicial review of the defendant local authority’s failure to transfer them and their families to safer accommodation. The claims alleged risks arising from windows, balconies, stairs, overcrowding, mould and the children’s lack of awareness of danger.

The principal issue was whether section 27 of the Children Act 1989 required the defendant’s social services department to request assistance from its housing department. The claimants also challenged the authority’s housing allocation system and its application to their individual circumstances.

1. The claims were dismissed. Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 concerns co-operation between separate authorities. It does not apply directly where social services and housing are departments of the same unitary authority. The contrary construction would be strained and artificial.
2. Nevertheless, Parliament’s purpose requires equivalent co-operation within a unitary authority. The authority’s departments must act towards each other as section 27 would require between separate authorities. The Secretary of State’s guidance should be read consistently with that approach, although guidance cannot lawfully change the meaning of the Act.
3. The defendant’s system was lawful. It provided for section 17 assessments, occupational-therapy risk assessments, risk-management plans, Team Around the Child meetings, housing and social-services involvement, risk-register classifications, additional points and exceptional housing nominations. The fact that some relevant professionals were not authority employees did not invalidate the arrangements.
4. The statutory obligation is one of co-operation, not an automatic right to a transfer. As explained in R v Northavon DC ex p Smith, the authorities must do the best they can while retaining their respective statutory functions and accounting for competing housing needs and resources.
5. The system had been applied lawfully to both claimants. The court was concerned by the passage of time and the continuing risks, particularly as the children grew older, but the absence of a transfer was not irrational on the evidence. The claims therefore failed the Wednesbury standard.