Reflecting on BC’s living arrangements, the High Court stated

mamunur6547

This ‘category’ also includes those young people who are aged - with respect to whom a special guardianship order is in force or was in force before they turned , and who were looked after by a local authority immediately before the making of that order see section A. Under section A and B of the Children Act , ‘qualifying care leavers’ are entitled to have their needs assessed and to receive advice, assistance and support. Assistance relating to employment, education or training may extend to the age of They are also entitled to make representations including complaints about the discharge of local authority functions section D and they have the right to independent advocacy support section A.


The High Court’s decision The High Court considered each of the quest Guangdong Mobile Number List ions in turn. Did the local authority owe BC a duty under section of the Children Act to provide him with accommodation? There was agreement that BC was a child and that he was in the council’s area during the period in question. While the council disputed BC being a child in need, the High Court concluded that he was “plainly a child in need by September at the latest” i.e., when the council held a meeting after he presented as homeless.  “Whether BC slept on the sofa or shared a bedroom with K is unimportant; on any view that unstable accommodation was not suitable for a year old child. It was unsuitable in nature, as BC did not shower there; he had to wear the same clothes day after day or occasionally go and get a change of clothes from his mother’s caravan and he had to try to snatch a shower at home.





It was in any event precarious, being uncertain in duration: from time to time BC had to find somewhere else to stay overnight …, and K’s mother could not have him stay with her unless she obtained financial help which was not forthcoming. BC himself had no money and no financial support. All of this was known to the council by September when it made its assessment”. Paragraph ; emphasis added Addressing the question of whether BC was without suitable accommodation as per the Southwark checklist, the High Court concluded that, despite the local authority’s assertions to the contrary, the caravan which, at one point, was suggested as available for BC to live in was “obviously not suitable accommodation” and it wasn’t even inspected by the council to assess its suitability.