mike shermer
Welfare Benefits Officer, Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council, Kings l
Member since 23rd Jan 2004
|
RE: Homeless 16 and 17 year olds.
Thu 02-Jul-09 12:28 PM |
The case in question is:
R (on the application of G) v London Borough of Southwark (judgment handed down on 20 May 2009).
UNDER CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE HOMELESSNESS LEGISLATION : HOUSE OF LORDS’ JUDGMENT IN G v LB SOUTHWARK HOMELESS 16 AND 17 YEAR OLDS : INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DUTIES The principal legal issue in this case was: what do the criteria in section 20(1) of the Children Act 1989 mean and how, if at all, is their application affected by the other duties of children’s authorities in particular section 17 of the 1989 Act and by the duties of housing authorities under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996? I should be grateful if you would ensure that a copy of this letter is passed to the chief housing officer of your authority, as soon as possible.
In R (G) v LB Southwark the central issue was: where a child of 16 or 17 who has been thrown out of the family home seeks help from the local children’s services authority, is found to be homeless and a child “in need”, and wishes to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, can the children’s services authority instead refer him to the local housing authority for accommodation under the homelessness legislation (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996)?
The case was heard on appeal from the Court of Appeal, which, by a majority of 2 to 1, had upheld Southwark’s ability to refer the child for assistance under the homelessness legislation even though a duty to provide accommodation had been accepted under section 20(1) of the Children Act 1989. The House of Lords was unanimous in allowing the appeal.
The leading opinion, delivered by Baroness Hale, reaffirmed the House of Lords’ opinions in R(M) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham and sets out the approach that children’s services authorities should take when performing their statutory duties to 16 and 17 year olds who are found to be homeless and “in need”. The Opinions can be found at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090520/appg-1.htm
The ruling confirmed the Government’s view that local children’s services authorities should presume that any lone, homeless child should be provided with accommodation under section 20(1) of the Children Act 1989 unless the child is not in the local authority’s judgement (based on an initial screening assessment), a child “in need”. In nearly all cases, the impact of a child being homeless and their parents being unable to provide them with suitable accommodation or care would result in such significant challenges to the child’s welfare that the child will be a child “in need”.
The House of Lords reiterated that the Children Act has primacy over the Housing Act in providing for children in need. The duties of local children’s services authorities to accommodate children in need cannot be circumvented by referring the child to the housing authority, whose duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 provide a safety net only for those (very few) homeless children who will not meet the criteria for accommodation under section 20 of the 1989 Act. Examples of the small number of homeless 16 and 17 year olds who would have priority need under the homelessness legislation (by virtue of article 3 of the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002) would include those whose need for accommodation did not fall within the circumstances specified in s.20(1) of the 1989 Act - for example, because they had been living independently for some time prior to their homelessness - and those whose need for accommodation fell within s.20 but who did not want to be accommodated under s.20. Such young people must be judged to be competent to make such a decision and have had the benefit of advice about the consequences of making such a decision.
Lord Neuberger’s judgment, which dealt with the interrelationship between the section 20 duty and the duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, provides that the purpose of the 2002 Order was to fill the lacuna under which there had been no specific duty to secure accommodation for homeless children aged 16 or 17 whose circumstances did not bring them within s.20 of the Children Act. The purpose of the 2002 Order was not to enable a children’s services authority to divert its duty under s.20 to the housing authority, thereby emasculating the assistance to be afforded to children aged 16 or 17 who “require accommodation”.
It will be extremely important that there continues to be close partnership between children’s services authorities and housing authorities (and between children services and housing services within unitary authorities) to support local authority responsibilities under the Children Act for meeting the needs of children in their area.
Baroness Hale referred to section 27 of the Children Act 1989, which empowers a children’s authority to ask other authorities, including any local housing authority, for “help in the exercise of any of their functions” under Part III of the 1989 Act. The requested authority must provide help if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of their own functions. But, she said, this does not mean that the children’s authority can avoid their responsibilities by “passing the buck” to another authority; rather that they can ask another authority to use its powers to help them discharge theirs.
|