The Court of Appeal (CoA) reaffirmed the distinction between Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) and Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996.
Background:
The claimant, a 17-year-old woman, had lived with her mother in a council flat from 2021 until her mother's unexpected death in August 2022. Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) managed the tenancy on behalf of the landlord, Colchester Borough Council.
The claimant remained in the flat after her mother's death, though she had no legal right to occupy it after the expiry of a notice to quit issued on the 2nd of January 2023. The only adult in the flat had been her mother’s fiancé who moved out in November. The claimant was not in full-time education, employment, or training, and had no regular income although her father occasionally gave her small sums. An assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 was performed and some forms of support were offered, including food vouchers.
Regarding the flat, CBH’s view was that she could not remain in the flat beyond the short term. On the 2nd of December 2022, CBH served a notice to quit that expired on the 2nd of January 2023. Following the expiry of the period CBH did not, however, immediately proceed toward eviction proceedings and there were continuing communications between CBH and the Council. On the 17th of February 2023, given the exceptional circumstances and out of concern for the claimant's welfare, CBH decided to grant her a tenancy of suitable alternative accommodation when she turned 18. On the 19th of April, just over a week after her 18th birthday, she accepted an offer from CBH of the tenancy of another flat, where she now resides.
The claimant however sought judicial review, arguing that she should be treated as a ‘former relevant child’ under Section 23C of the CA 1989, which would entitle her to continuing support from the local authority (LA). She argued that the Council had failed to provide her with accommodation under Section 20 of the CA 1989, resulting in her being ‘homeless’ for the purposes of Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996.
Decision:
The CoA decided that the High Court below had been correct to dismiss the claimant’s appeal. Underhill LJ noted, “I believe that the Judge was right to uphold the reasonableness of the Council’s decision in what was an unusual set of circumstances which are unlikely to be typical of these cases.”
The CoA agreed with the Council's argument that the two statutory regimes, namely Section 20 of the CA 1989 and Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 are distinct. The question of whether a child requires accommodation under CA 1989 and Section 20 of the Housing Act of 1996 involves a broader evaluation of the specific circumstances. The Court clarified that meeting the criteria for homelessness does not automatically necessitate accommodation under Section 20, as the two statutory regimes serve different purposes and use different terminology.
The Court found that the LA's decision was reasonable in the specific circumstances, including the claimant's imminent 18th birthday, her wish to remain with her boyfriend and cats, the lack of an immediate threat of eviction and the support she was receiving from the local authority.
Implications:
This decision makes it clear that, while both sections interact in cases involving young individuals, they operate within distinct legal paradigms. Fulfilling the criteria of homelessness under Section 175 Housing Act does not inherently trigger an obligation under Section 20. This judgement also clarifies the duties of local authorities in assessing accommodation needs.
