header-logo header-logo

Inadequate engagement

02 February 2018 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Features , Public , Community care
printer mail-detail
nlj_7779_dobson

Nicholas Dobson considers what happened when a local authority fell short on its duties to cater for a vulnerable parent & disabled child

  • A local authority’s decision letter where a vulnerable single parent and an extensively disabled child were assessed as having no identified medical or housing needs had very serious defects.

Balancing identified need against painfully slender housing and financial resources is always a tough call for local authorities. And the task is even tougher when vulnerable children are involved. But, despite all pressures, councils must make lawful and rational decisions in the light of applicable law and all other material considerations.

Unfortunately, one authority fell short and attracted considerable judicial criticism when a housing decision letter concerning a single parent (J) and a child with an extensive range of disabilities (L) was vitiated by ‘very serious defects’. The case in question was R (J and another) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2017] EWHC 3411 (Admin), judgment of which was issued by Nicklin J on 21 December 2017.

Background

J (who suffered

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll