KS & Ors v London Borough of Haringey

A local authority must address identified risks to children in need through continuing, evidence-based and properly co-ordinated action. It is insufficient for children’s services to refer a family to housing and close its file, or for housing services simply to apply an allocation policy without giving proper weight to professional assessments. The duty under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 applies both to general policies and to individual decisions. It requires the active promotion of children’s welfare. A request under section 27 of the Children Act 1989 requires genuine co-operation and a decision addressing the specified risks and needs. Reassessment alone is insufficient where the evidence identifies unsafe and overcrowded accommodation.

The claimants, a mother and her daughter, challenged decisions by Haringey’s children’s services and housing authority concerning the family’s two-bedroom first-floor accommodation. The daughter had autism, no awareness of danger, serious behavioural and sleeping difficulties, and could access balconies from which she might fall. The family’s son, who had health difficulties, shared a bedroom with his mother because of the daughter’s disturbed sleep.

Children’s services assessed the accommodation as unsuitable and made a request under section 27 of the Children Act 1989. Housing services nevertheless retained the family in Band C under the allocation policy. The central issues were whether Haringey had acted irrationally and unlawfully, whether it had complied with its duties under sections 17 and 27 of the Children Act 1989 and section 11 of the Children Act 2004, and whether it had adequately addressed the identified risks.

1. Claim allowed. The decision letters of 15 December 2017 and 3 January 2018 were quashed. Haringey was required to put in place a plan addressing the claimants’ unmet needs and to reassess the need for appropriate accommodation.
2. The court must scrutinise a local authority’s decision with care, particularly where a child faces risk. The assessment must be objective and evidence-based, while respecting the authority’s role as decision-maker. The allocation policy was not itself unlawful, and failure to qualify for Band A or Band B did not prevent Haringey from exercising its discretionary power to award additional priority or approve an offer of housing.
3. The evidence showed that the risk could not realistically be managed by ordinary parental supervision. Constant vigilance, day and night, was required because of the child’s autism, climbing behaviour, disturbed sleep and lack of danger awareness. The proposed permanent locking solution was unavailable because of fire-safety concerns. Retaining the family in Band C without an alternative plan or suitable accommodation was irrational.
4. Children’s services had an ongoing obligation under sections 17 of the Children Act 1989 and 11 of the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children. Closing the file merely because there were no concerns about parental care did not resolve the separate risks created by the accommodation.
5. Section 11 is a process duty, but it requires active promotion of children’s welfare and applies to the application of policies in individual cases. Reference to the allocation policy and a general assertion that regard had been given to welfare were insufficient where the evidence showed that the risks could not be managed in the existing home.
6. The section 27 request was not limited to a bare reassessment. It required housing services to make a decision addressing the identified safety and overcrowding risks. Within a unitary authority, different departments had to co-operate as though section 27 applied between separate authorities. Reconsidering the family’s position and leaving it unchanged did not comply with that obligation.