BC, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council

The court held that, applying the structured approach in R (G) v Southwark LBC and the principles in R (G) v Barnet LBC, Surrey County Council (SCC) owed the claimant (then aged 17) an immediate duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation by 18 September 2019. The judge found that the claimant was a child in need under section 17 and lacked suitable accommodation, and that his parents were prevented from providing suitable accommodation within the meaning of section 20(1)(c).

The court further found that SCC subsequently played a central role in facilitating the claimant's continued stay with a friend’s mother and that those arrangements amounted to accommodation provided under section 20 (and therefore section 22(1)(b)) from 17 October 2019. As a result the claimant acquired status under section 24 as a person qualifying for advice and assistance (a qualifying young person).

The court also dealt with delay, treating the local authority's misconduct as an ongoing breach and finding good reasons to extend time to grant relief. The claimant was therefore granted declarations to those effects.

This is a judicial review claim by BC challenging Surrey County Council's refusal to accept and act on duties under the Children Act 1989 when he was 17 and presenting as homeless. The claimant sought declarations that SCC owed him duties under section 20 CA1989, that arrangements made for him to stay with a friend’s mother were provided pursuant to section 20, and that he thereby acquired qualifying status under section 24 CA1989.

• Background and facts: BC had long-standing health and developmental difficulties following a childhood brain tumour. Family relationships deteriorated and by September 2019 (aged 17) he was excluded from home, sofa-surfing with a friend, with precarious and unsuitable accommodation. SCC had prior involvement with BC and recorded concerns that his mother had effectively abdicated responsibility. SCC delayed meaningful assessment and closed its file on 28 October 2019 despite continued instability and later events including a hospital s.136 admission on 16 October 2019.
• Procedural posture: First instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The matter was listed rolled-up for permission and substantive hearing.
• Issues framed: (1) whether SCC owed a s.20 duty and from when; (2) whether the accommodation arranged with the friend’s mother amounted to s.20 accommodation; (3) whether SCC owes leaving-care duties; (4) whether SCC should have exercised discretion to treat BC as looked after if formal s.20 duties were not engaged; and (5) whether the claim should be refused for delay.
• Court’s reasoning: Applying the Southwark structured questions, the judge found BC was a child in need and plainly required accommodation by 18 September 2019. SCC’s assumptions about alternative accommodation (grandparents’ caravan; the friend’s mother) were held unreasonable because SCC did not investigate suitability or availability. The court held SCC had a clear duty under s.20 from 18 September 2019. Although SCC did not initially facilitate the friend’s mother arrangement, by 17 October 2019 SCC had taken a central role in arranging and securing the continued accommodation, so that from that date the accommodation was provided pursuant to s.20 (and thus section 22(1)(b)). That meant BC had been looked after for a period close to but under 13 weeks before his eighteenth birthday and therefore obtained qualifying young person status under section 24. On delay, the court treated the authority’s failure as an ongoing breach, accepted reasons for delay and found no prejudice to SCC; permission to bring the claim was granted and declarations made.

The claim is allowed. The court declared (1) that by 18 September 2019 SCC owed BC a duty under section 20 Children Act 1989 to provide him with accommodation; (2) that the arrangements SCC made for BC to stay with his friend’s mother on and after 17 October 2019 were made pursuant to section 20 CA1989; and (3) that BC thereby acquired the status of a person qualifying for advice and assistance under section 24 CA1989. The court extended time and rejected delay as a bar on the facts.