Stewart, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council

A local authority assessing whether a child is “in need” under Children Act 1989, section 17, may consider the family’s financial circumstances and access to support from relatives or friends. Where expenditure is incompatible with claimed destitution and parents refuse relevant disclosure, the authority may draw a rational inference that sufficient third-party support, including accommodation, is available. The authority must consider accommodation as part of the assessment, but need not identify a particular alternative property where the applicants withhold information needed to investigate their circumstances. The right-to-rent provisions in Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014 do not make such a decision unlawful where permission to rent would normally be available, or where accommodation could be provided without rent.

The claimant, his partner and their daughter had received accommodation and financial assistance from Birmingham City Council under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 since 2011. Following a reassessment, the Council concluded that the child was no longer in need and withdrew support. The assessment recorded substantial non-essential expenditure and the parents’ failure to disclose full information about their finances and supportive network.

The claimant challenged the decision by judicial review, arguing that the Council had failed to make adequate enquiries, had failed to consider whether the family would become homeless, and had failed to consider the effect of the right-to-rent scheme under the Immigration Act 2014. After permission was granted, the Council issued a further assessment addressing section 21 of that Act. The central issue was whether the original decision was unlawful for failing properly to assess the availability of alternative accommodation.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council was entitled to conclude that the child was no longer in need.
2. Section 17 required consideration of both the family’s finances and accommodation. The assessment expressly identified those matters. The court should construe a social work assessment practically, having regard to the expertise of its author and the factual context.
3. The family’s expenditure on non-essential goods and services was incompatible with claimed destitution and justified an inference that other support was available. The parents had been given repeated opportunities to explain their circumstances but refused to identify their supportive network and had made incomplete or misleading financial disclosures. In that context, the Council was entitled to infer that third-party support, including alternative accommodation, was available.
4. The absence of an express discussion of accommodation in the final written decision did not establish a failure to consider it. Accommodation had been included in the social work plan and was a fundamental part of the assessment.
5. Section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 ordinarily disqualifies a person without leave from occupying premises under a residential tenancy agreement, but section 21(3) permits the Secretary of State to grant permission to rent. The Home Office evidence showed that permission would normally be granted to a person with an outstanding in-country appeal. The right-to-rent scheme therefore did not prevent the Council from concluding that alternative accommodation was available, absent evidence of particular difficulty.
6. Accommodation with family or friends would not fall within the prohibition where no rent or equivalent payment was made, subject to the separate position of a landlord whose tenancy agreement covered a relevant occupier.
7. The later reassessment expressly considered the right-to-rent issue. Its lawfulness was not formally in issue, but it was lawful in any event for the reasons given.