U and U, R (on the application of) v Milton Keynes Council

A local authority’s duty under Children Act 1989 section 17 is ongoing. A reassessment may be required where new information materially undermines the earlier assessment or indicates a change suggesting that a child may be in need. The authority must make sufficiently diligent inquiries and may draw adverse inferences from unexplained non-disclosure after giving the applicant a fair opportunity to respond. Where accommodation is said to be available through the parent’s resources, the authority must consider whether it can lawfully and suitably be obtained. In particular, a person without leave to remain may be unable to enter a residential tenancy under sections 20 and 21 of the Immigration Act 2014. Hotel accommodation is fact-sensitive and may constitute residential occupation. A refusal to reassess which ignores those matters is unlawful.

The claimants were children living with their mother, who had no leave to remain and no recourse to public funds. Following assessments under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, Milton Keynes Council concluded that the family was not destitute because the mother had access to accommodation, support and funds. The Council later refused to reassess despite further information that existing accommodation would end and that previous sources of support were unavailable.

The claim challenged the refusal to reassess on two grounds: whether the later information triggered the continuing section 17 duty, and whether the Council had unlawfully assumed that the mother could obtain accommodation without considering the restrictions imposed by the Immigration Act 2014.

1. Claim allowed. The Council’s continuing refusal to reassess the children’s needs was unlawful.
2. The Council had undertaken a careful March assessment and was entitled to rely on its findings unless later information materially cast doubt on them or suggested a change in circumstances such that the children appeared to be in need. The authority was entitled to assess the mother’s credibility, consider inconsistencies, and draw adverse inferences from failures to provide information after explaining its concerns and allowing a fair opportunity to respond.
3. The later information did not materially undermine the Council’s assessment of the mother’s financial position. The Council was therefore entitled to maintain its view that she had access to funds. That conclusion did not, however, resolve whether she could in reality secure suitable accommodation for the family.
4. The Council had accepted that the family’s existing accommodation would end and did not rely on the continuing availability of accommodation from friends or relatives. It therefore had to consider whether the mother could lawfully obtain suitable accommodation using her funds. Sections 20 and 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 potentially prevented her from occupying premises under a residential tenancy agreement.
5. Whether hotel occupation is for residential use depends on all the circumstances, including the occupier’s intention, the length of occupation, the actual living arrangements and available alternatives. Temporary hotel accommodation may become residential over time. A plan requiring a family to move between short-term hotels also raises questions about suitability for the children and could not be relied upon without assessment.
6. The Council had failed to consider those matters. Its omission was a failure to take account of a relevant factor and rendered the continuing refusal to reassess unlawful. The proposal to place the children in foster care did not cure the defect because the Council had not lawfully assessed whether the mother could obtain suitable accommodation or whether foster care would be short-term and appropriate.

The parties were directed to address the appropriate consequential orders.