header-logo header-logo

12 May 2011
Issue: 7465 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Council lets down London teen

A London council acted unlawfully in failing to refer a homeless teenager to its children’s services department when processing his housing application, the Court of Appeal has held.

Lambeth Borough Council provided accommodation for the teenager for about seven months in 2006, under its Housing Act 1996, s 188 duty as a housing authority. The council conceded that it should have provided this under its Children Act 1989, s 20 duty as a children’s services authority.

The result was that the teenager was not given the additional support and advice he was due, although he was given accommodation.

Delivering judgment in R (on the application of TG v London Borough of Lambeth and Shelter (Intervener) [2011] EWCA Civ 526 Lord Justice Wilson said the facts of the case “reveal a serious absence of co-ordination” between the housing and children’s services departments, and that he had been persuaded that “such absence of co-ordination was positively unlawful”.

“Irrespective of the result of this appeal, I have no doubt that…a substantial number of vulnerable children are still suffering from a failure of co-ordination between these two departments within a number of English local authorities. Even if it transpires that this appeal should turn on a narrow factual axis, it should serve…to advertise the need for all local authorities to take urgent steps to remedy any such failure”.

However, an Art 8 breach was not proven because the consequences of the failure on the teenager’s personal development were “far too nebulous, far too speculative and, insofar as discernible, far too slight” to lead to a conclusion, he said.

Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive, who intervened in the case, comments: “This judgment confirms once again the clear legal duty councils have to ensure that joint protocols are in place to properly assess homeless teenagers.

“Unfortunately many councils have still not put these procedures in place, meaning that a vulnerable homeless child was denied the proper care and support he needed and was entitled to.”

Issue: 7465 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll