header-logo header-logo

Council lets down London teen

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll