In three linked cases, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children had had assistance with housing from the local social services authorities. They claimed entitlement to support as former relevant children under section 20. The local authorities argued that they had provided accommodation under section 17 rather than section 20 of the 1989 Act.
Held: Once the section 20 duty arose, the local authority could not ‘finesse it away’ by claiming to exercise a different power.
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 1082 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 441, [2007] 2 FLR 822
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Helpful – S, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Sutton CA 26-Jul-2007
The local authority owed the section 20(1) duty towards a 17 year old girl who was about to be released from a Secure Training Centre. It argued however that the duty no longer applied because she had agreed to go to a hostel for homeless women . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham HL 27-Feb-2008
M, a girl aged 16 had become estranged from her mother, and sought housing assistance. She was not referred to the authority’s children’s services, and was not housed. The House examined the duties of local authorities under the section towards . .
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough Of Southwark HL 20-May-2009
The House was asked whether when a child of 16 or 17 who was ejected from home and presents himself to a local children’s services authority and asks to be accommodated by them under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, it is open to that authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Local Government
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.253291