J and L, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon

A local authority considering housing and social-care issues affecting a disabled child must adopt an integrated, evidence-based approach. Its duties under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 apply to individual decisions and require the child’s welfare to be actively promoted. A social-care assessment must identify the risks, the action required, who is responsible, when it must occur and how progress will be reviewed. Parental supervision may manage an immediate risk temporarily, but cannot automatically substitute for suitable accommodation where the risk is constant and materially greater than that ordinarily faced by a child. Housing and social-services departments may retain separate functions, but they must co-operate and ensure overall review. A decision that merely reproduces inadequate medical advice, fails to engage with the social-care assessment and does not consider relevant hardship or welfare criteria is unlawful.

The claimants, a single mother and her disabled son, sought judicial review of the London Borough of Hillingdon’s refusal to recognise any housing need under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. The son had autism, epilepsy, developmental difficulties and no sense of danger. Their privately rented bungalow presented risks arising from the lack of safe access, the nearby road and car park, and unsuitable bathing arrangements.

A child and family assessment recognised those risks but treated them as tolerable pending alternative accommodation and recommended closure of the social-services case. The housing department later refused the application, relying substantially on a medical assessment and asserting that the accommodation was suitable. The central issues were whether the assessment and housing decision lawfully addressed the child’s welfare, whether the departments had co-operated, and whether the relevant allocation-policy provisions had been considered.

1. Judicial review and scrutiny. Housing decisions remained matters for the local authority, particularly in conditions of scarce resources. However, the interests of a disabled child facing serious identified risks required intense scrutiny. The authority had to demonstrate an objective, evidence-based decision-making process.
2. Child and family assessment. The assessment correctly identified the principal risks of drowning during a seizure and injury near the busy road. Parental supervision could be treated as a temporary mitigation. It was not a sufficient long-term solution where the supervision required constant vigilance and the child’s disabilities materially increased the risk. The assessment failed to identify the individual risks adequately in the plan, specify when the proposed action would occur, or provide for review if alternative accommodation was not obtained.
3. Co-operation and welfare. The duty under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 applied to the local authority as a whole and to individual decisions. The authority had to have regard to, and actively promote, the child’s welfare. Separate housing and social-services functions were permissible, but the process had to be holistic, integrated and continuing. Someone had to take responsibility for the overall review. Here, the social-services department closed its involvement without ensuring that the housing department understood the importance of rehousing to the section 17 assessment.
4. Housing decision. The medical adviser had expressed views outside the proper scope of the medical assessment, and the housing officer had reproduced that advice without addressing the occupational-therapy evidence, the child and family assessment, or the identified risks. The decision also relied on uncertain proposed adaptations despite the assessment that adaptations were not realistically available. There was no evidence that the hardship provisions, including other urgent welfare reasons, had been considered.
5. The decision letter therefore failed to demonstrate compliance with the statutory welfare duty and failed to engage with the identified housing-related risks. The claim succeeded. The court invited submissions on the consequential order.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No earlier decision of the court was identified in the judgment.