O, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

A local authority assessing whether a child is in need under the Children Act 1989 has a judgmental discretion, subject to public law requirements. It must make reasonable enquiries, including enquiries suggested by the applicant or which no reasonable authority could fail to undertake. Where a family has previously obtained accommodation or financial support, unexplained cessation of that support, gaps or inconsistencies in the evidence, and inadequate co-operation may rationally support an inference that the family is not homeless or destitute. Fairness requires concerns to be put to the applicant before adverse inferences are drawn. Courts should construe social workers’ assessments practically, while ensuring that sufficient enquiry has taken place and that credibility findings have an articulated basis.

O, a child, and her mother, PO, sought accommodation and support from Lambeth under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. PO had no recourse to public funds and maintained that the family was homeless and destitute. Lambeth’s assessment concluded that previous sources of accommodation and financial support remained available and that the family was not destitute.

O sought judicial review, alleging that the assessment was irrational and based on inadequate enquiry. The central issues were whether Lambeth had rationally assessed destitution and homelessness, and whether its enquiries and inferences complied with public law requirements.

1. Claim dismissed. The assessing social worker was entitled to conclude that O and PO were not destitute. The combination of a reasonable level of financial support previously appearing in PO’s bank statements, the unexplained cessation of payments after the first negative assessment, and PO’s failure to co-operate with reasonable enquiries concerning the sources of income provided a rational basis for the conclusion (paras [44]–[47]).
2. A local authority’s duty to make reasonable enquiries requires enquiries suggested by the applicant or which no reasonable authority could fail to undertake in the circumstances. The authority retains judgment and discretion on whether a child is in need, but must comply with public law requirements (paras [15]–[17], [21]).
3. It was also rational to infer that accommodation remained available. The family had been accommodated by friends for several years; there were inconsistencies in the evidence; relevant individuals failed to respond fully; there was no satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal of accommodation; and doubts about PO’s credibility were supported by identified inconsistencies and an admitted untruth (paras [48]–[50]).
4. Fairness required Lambeth to put its concerns to PO before drawing adverse inferences. That requirement was met. The assessment contained adequately detailed and thorough enquiry, and the conclusions had to be considered holistically (paras [19]–[22], [50]).
5. The court should construe social workers’ assessments practically, seeking their true meaning and evaluating them as the work of social care experts rather than lawyers. That deference does not remove the court’s obligation to ensure diligent enquiry and an articulated basis for rejecting credibility (para [17]).
6. It was unnecessary to decide whether relief would alternatively have been refused because of PO’s dishonesty or because a later human-rights assessment had rendered the matter academic. Lambeth undertook to continue support until 14 days after the order was handed down, with possible further accommodation pending a facilitated return if PO co-operated (paras [51]–[52]).

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission had been granted and interim accommodation ordered, but the judgment does not state any prior merits decision.