TJ, R (on the application of) v Monmouthshire County Council

The claimant sought judicial review of Monmouthshire County Council's alleged failure to arrange supported suitable living accommodation on his transition from looked-after child to adult. The court found that the council breached duties under section 6 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and Part 6 of the Code of Practice by failing to ascertain and have regard to the claimant's views and needs (including his diagnoses of ADHD, autism and pathological demand avoidance), by treating a single option (Pobl Hill House) as the only realistic outcome and by failing to secure access to the full range of potentially suitable supported accommodation and reasonable preference through allocation processes. The judge also found insufficient evidence of appropriate collaboration between social services and housing departments. Permission to bring the claim was granted and the substantive claim succeeded; the court ordered declarations of breach and declined to make mandatory orders given ongoing assessments and the complexity of required processes.

Background and parties: The claimant was a looked-after child in the care of Monmouthshire County Council who, on turning 18, faced the end of his existing accommodation. He has diagnoses including ADHD, autism and pathological demand avoidance (PDA). The claimant challenged the council's transition planning and accommodation arrangements under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and Part 6 of the Code of Practice.

Procedural posture: Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused on the papers by HHJ Keyser KC. The claimant renewed permission on a single ground alleging breach of duties under section 6 of the 2014 Act and Part 6 of the Code of Practice. At the renewal hearing the parties agreed to a rolled up hearing; the judge granted permission and proceeded to determine the substantive claim.

Relief sought: The claimant sought declarations of breach and mandatory orders to compel the council to comply with its duties for transition planning and to arrange suitable supported accommodation.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether the council complied with the duty in section 6(2) to ascertain and have regard to the claimant's views, wishes and feelings;
• whether the council complied with Part 6 of the Code of Practice requiring seamless transition planning, access to the full range of supported accommodation options, joint working with housing and contingency planning;
• whether the council had properly engaged with alternative options and other local authorities where required; and
• what relief was appropriate (declarations and/or mandatory relief).

Court's reasoning and findings: The judge concluded that the council was in breach for three principal reasons: (1) it failed to ascertain and have proper regard to the claimant's views and particular vulnerabilities (notably PDA) before recommending Pobl Hill House and continued to press that option after the claimant and his mother expressed concerns; (2) it did not ensure access to the full range of potentially suitable supported accommodation in the area nor demonstrate that reasonable preference in allocation processes had been pursued; and (3) there was an absence of evidence of effective collaboration between social services and housing departments so as to identify and secure suitable options. The judge accepted the factual difficulties and the complexity of the claimant's needs, noted there was an ongoing further assessment and engagement with a Newport project, and observed a change in the claimant's circumstances. On relief, the judge ordered declarations of breach, invited agreed wording and consequential submissions, and declined to make mandatory orders because the declarations combined with active ongoing processes were the preferable means to secure compliance.

Wider context: The judgment emphasised the mandatory nature of the duties in the Code of Practice and the need for joint transition planning rather than treating homelessness as an anticipated mechanism for meeting planned accommodation needs.

The claim succeeded. The court found the council in breach of its duties under section 6 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and Part 6 of the Code of Practice for failing to ascertain and have regard to the claimant's views and disabilities, for not ensuring access to the full range of supported accommodation and reasonable allocation preference, and for insufficient joint working with housing. The court granted declarations of those breaches and declined to make mandatory orders because of ongoing assessments and the complexity of the required processes.

Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused on the papers by HHJ Keyser KC. The claimant renewed permission and the renewal hearing proceeded as a rolled up hearing before His Honour Judge Jarman KC, who granted permission and determined the substantive claim.