header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 February 2018 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Features , Public , Community care
printer mail-detail

Inadequate engagement

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll