The Court of Appeal (Underhill, Bean and King LJJ) has handed down judgment in R (DF) v Essex County Council [2024] EWCA Civ 1545, a case concerning local authorities’ duties to children in need.
The Claimant alleged that the Council had unlawfully failed to provide her with accommodation under s.20 Children Act 1989 when she was a child, in particular during a period in 2023 when she was “homeless” for the purposes of s.175 Housing Act 1996. She therefore contended that the Council was now bound to give her the ongoing support normally afforded to ‘care leavers’. The High Court dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment confirms that a child who is “homeless” for the purposes of s.175 Housing Act 1996 will not necessarily “require accommodation” for the purposes of s.20 Children Act 1989. The question whether a child requires accommodation is to be answered as a matter of factual evaluation, applying that phrase in its natural and common sense meaning, and without reference to the definition of homelessness in s.175.
In this case, in the relevant period, the Claimant was occupying a flat that had formerly been rented by her mother, who was recently deceased. She was not under any immediate threat of eviction. The landlord made clear that it would not seek her eviction without a court order. It was highly unlikely that such order, even if sought, could be obtained before her 18th birthday. In the circumstances, the Council believed with good reason that the Claimant’s accommodation was not precarious. The Council was not, therefore, rationally required to conclude that she required accommodation under s.20 Children Act 1989.
Jonathan Auburn KC and Raphael Hogarth acted for Essex County Council in the Court of Appeal.
Zoe Gannon acted for the Council in the High Court.
