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

A local authority arranging a care leaver’s transition to adulthood must ascertain and have regard to the young person’s views, wishes and feelings, including the practical effects of disability. It must plan access to the full range of potentially suitable supported accommodation and ensure collaboration between social services and housing departments. The authority must not treat homelessness, or a return to the family home, as the only alternatives where suitable accommodation can be anticipated and planned. Declarations may be preferable to mandatory orders where compliance involves complex and evolving assessments.

The claimant, formerly a looked-after child, sought judicial review of the council’s failure to arrange suitable supported accommodation for his transition to adulthood under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and Part 6 of its Code of Practice.

Permission was initially refused on the papers. On renewal, the court directed a rolled-up hearing and granted permission before determining the substantive claim. The central issues were whether the council had properly considered the claimant’s views and disabilities, planned for suitable accommodation, and coordinated its social services and housing functions.

1. Permission and substantive claim. Permission was granted and the claim succeeded. The council was in breach of its duties towards the claimant.

2. Under section 6 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, the council had to ascertain and have regard to the claimant’s views, wishes and feelings, and to his characteristics and disabilities. Presenting Pobl Hill House as the only real option without first ascertaining his views, and without proper regard to his autism and pathological demand avoidance disorder, was a fundamental flaw. The breach continued after his visit and expressed concerns, when the council continued to focus on that placement and identified homelessness or a return to his parents as alternatives.

3. The council also failed to comply with the transition-planning requirements in Part 6 of the Code of Practice. It had not ensured access to the full range of potentially suitable supported accommodation options or made arrangements for reasonable preference on welfare grounds through allocation schemes.

4. Effective planning required collaboration between the council’s social services and housing departments. The onus was not on the claimant or his mother to identify suitable alternatives, although their assistance could be helpful.

5. The court rejected the separate contention that the council had failed to engage with authorities outside its area. Although the council had stated that Newport was outside its control, it had engaged with accommodation initiatives there, and the assessment remained ongoing.

6. Declarations of the breaches were appropriate. Mandatory orders were unnecessary because compliance involved intricate and complex processes, the claimant’s circumstances had changed, and an ongoing assessment and engagement with a Newport project provided a better basis for future action than rigid orders. Counsel were directed to agree draft declaratory wording and file it within 14 days, with consequential submissions if required.

Permission was refused on the papers by HHJ Keyser KC. On renewal, the High Court granted permission and proceeded with a rolled-up hearing, determining the claim substantively.