header-logo header-logo

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

Inadequate engagement

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll