C1 & C2, R (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hackney
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE TURNER
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a mother and her two children living in an unsuitable one-bedroom flat and seeking judicial review to require the local authority to provide suitable accommodation. The court held that section 27 of the Children Act 1989 does not apply to requests for help between departments within the same authority and ruled against the family's request for a mandatory order. The court found that neither Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child nor section 11 of the Children Act 2004 could influence the statutory interpretation of section 27. Consequently, the application for judicial review failed.
Judgment
Mr Justice Turner:
INTRODUCTION
The claimants, a girl and a boy, are five and four years old respectively. They live with their mother in a one bedroom flat. It is undisputed that the flat is not suitable and that the family needs a three bedroom flat with access to outdoor space. This application for judicial review is brought with a view to requiring the defendant to provide them with such accommodation forthwith. To preserve the claimants’ anonymity, I will not refer to any member of the family by name.
BACKGROUND
The story of how this family came to its present plight is not a happy one but, sadly, it is by no means unique. Suffice it to say that the children’s mother was fleeing an abusive relationship and she and her children became homeless as a result. In November last year, after spending time in temporary accommodation, they moved into the unsuitable flat in which they presently live.
To make things worse, both children face significant challenges. The girl has behavioural problems. More seriously, the boy is autistic and is constantly active with even less sense of danger than is characteristic of children of his age in general. Predictably, the particular needs of her children have taken their toll on their mother.
Solicitors acting on behalf of the family managed to persuade the defendant to place the claimants’ mother on the housing waiting list following an assessment that she required a two bedroomed house. However, in reliance, at least in part, upon an occupational therapy report dated 1 st May 2014, which emphatically criticised the adequacy of the flat in which the family continued to live, judicial review proceedings were commenced. This claim was compromised on terms and upon the defendant’s express written acknowledgment that the flat was unsuitable.
The terms of the consent order did not directly compel the defendant to provide suitable accommodation. Instead, they purported to require the defendant’s children’s services department to write a letter to the defendant’s housing department requesting that the family should be provided with a three bedroom property with access to outdoor space.
This request was made, and the defendant duly wrote itself a letter. Since the two departments operated from the same address, the letter was sent from “Hackney Service Centre, 1 Hillman Street, Hackney, London E8 1DY” to “Hackney Service Centre, 1 Hillman Street, Hackney E8 1DY”.
Subsequently, in response to an email from the