SN, PN and CN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Haringey

A local authority assessing whether a child is in need under Children Act 1989 must take reasonable steps to obtain the information needed for a lawful judgment. Physical presence in the authority’s area is sufficient to engage the assessment duty; it is not necessary to establish exclusive responsibility for the child.

The authority may draw adverse inferences from unexplained inconsistencies and a failure to provide information, provided that reasonable enquiries have been made and the concerns have been put to the applicant. The court must apply close scrutiny but must not substitute its own assessment of credibility or need. An immaterial error of law will not justify quashing a decision where it is clear that the outcome would have been the same.

The claimants, three children supported by their mother, challenged Enfield’s decision to terminate accommodation and subsistence provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The mother had no recourse to public funds and one child had cystic fibrosis.

Enfield’s assessment questioned the mother’s account of the family’s accommodation, sources of support and relationship with the children’s father. It also incorrectly treated the absence of an established connection with Enfield as a reason to conclude that the children were not in need. Haringey declined to provide support or conduct a further assessment. The central issues were whether Enfield’s assessment was unlawful and whether Haringey had to duplicate it.

1. The claims were dismissed. Enfield’s assessment was lawful notwithstanding its erroneous reliance on physical presence as a reason for declining responsibility.

2. Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 and section 17 of the Children Act 1989, physical presence within an authority’s area is sufficient to engage the duty to assess. More than one authority may therefore be required to assess simultaneously. The assessment concerns whether the children are in need, rather than which authority has exclusive responsibility.

3. The authority had made reasonable and sufficiently diligent enquiries. It considered the child’s medical condition, the family’s accommodation, the father’s involvement and the evidence from schools and other individuals. The social workers were entitled to reject the mother’s account where it was inconsistent, lacked detail and conflicted with other evidence.

4. An applicant seeking support must provide sufficient information to enable the authority to assess destitution and available sources of support. After making reasonable enquiries, the authority may treat unexplained failures and inconsistencies as relevant to whether the statutory threshold is met. The concerns must first be put to the applicant so that she has an opportunity to respond.

5. The court applied the high threshold applicable to a challenge based on irrationality. It must scrutinise whether the authority made sufficient enquiries and reached a rational conclusion, but must avoid substituting its own view for that of the decision-maker on credibility and social need.

6. Although the physical-presence reasoning was an error of law, it was clear from the assessment read as a whole that the decision would have been the same without that error. The error therefore did not justify quashing the assessment. Since Enfield’s assessment was lawful, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to order Haringey to duplicate it. If the section 17 duty were later triggered, the relevant authority or authorities would have to comply with it, including the cooperation duty under section 27.

Interim relief was granted by Yip J on 28 November 2018. Permission to bring the judicial review claim was granted by David Casement QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 21 December 2018. The Administrative Court dismissed the claims.