R (AE) v London Borough of Brent [2018] EWHC 2574 (Admin)
This case concerned the High Court dismissing a Judicial Review against a decision made by a Council to offer an applicant accommodation that was within a 60-minute commute from the applicant’s children’s school and her parents home. The offer was made, pursuant to S. 17 Children Act 1989.
The applicant had previously been in prison and during this time, her children lived with their maternal grandparents within the Brent area. Upon the applicant’s release from prison, Brent Council completed several child and family assessments, which recommended securing the family, “suitable, affordable and sustainable property within a reasonable commute of 60 minutes” from the applicant’s parents’ home and her children’s school.
The Claimant applied for a judicial review of the decision of Brent Council.
The Claimant claimed the decision made by Brent was:
(i) unreasonable on Wednesbury grounds (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223);
(ii) a breach of the Claimant’s article 8 right to a private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”)?
The Relevant Legal Framework
The applicant’s case was that Brent Council failed to make a reasonable offer of accommodation pursuant to its duty under section 17 Children Act 1989.
Section 17(1) provides that it is the general duty of every local authority:
”(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
(b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.”
Any service provided by a local authority in the exercise of a function conferred by section 17:
”(3) … may be provided for the family of a particular child in need or for any member of his family, if it is provided with a view to safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare.”
And the services provided: ”(6) … may include accommodation and giving assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash.”
The applicant also submitted that Brent Council’s decision amounted to a breach of her article 8 rights under the ECHR.
Article 8 provides:
”(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review and found that the London Borough of Brent had not acted unreasonably and indeed had not interfered with the applicant’s article 8 rights when offering the accommodation to the applicant, pursuant to S. 17 Children’s Act 1989.
The High Court found that the Council had a broad discretion as to how it met its duty when offering accommodation under section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989 and consequently that Brent had not acted unreasonably.
The High Court found that Section 17 provides a local authority with a wide discretion to provide a service for a particular child in need, or any member of their family (section 17(3)), which may include accommodation (section 17(6)).
The decision made by the Court in this case will undoubtedly be well received by housing authorities that secure accommodation under their section 17 Children’s Act 1989 powers.
By Isabelle Alajooz who is head of the housing team at Abbotts Martin and is renowned for giving excellent advice and an outstanding level of service to her clients.