High Court finds that Hounslow unlawfully failed to treat a child as “looked after” in s.20 Children Act 1989 case

CLT is a child in need who lives in a council house owned by the London Borough of Hounslow. Throughout his childhood, his mother held a secure tenancy at that address. Sadly, his mother and father died in 2018 and 2020 respectively. In a claim for judicial review, he argued that he had been a “looked after” child ever since their deaths. Hounslow has denied this throughout.

Upon CLT’s mother’s death, his father succeeded to the tenancy, but no further statutory successions were permitted. As such, the tenancy did not pass to the Claimant upon his father’s death. CLT was aged 11 when his father died.

At that time, Hounslow agreed that the Claimant and his sister could return from the hospital to their home address to be cared for by their neighbour, RM, and made arrangements for them to travel there. An “Approval to Accommodate” form was filled out but never finalised. Hounslow recorded that the children had returned home “as per a family arrangement”. They then conducted checks on RM, and contacted other potential carers. A Hounslow social worker advised the children that without a suitable carer, they would be placed in care.

A family member, TB, identified a distant cousin of the Claimant’s, IF, who they referred to as their “uncle”. It was proposed that IF could care for the children, first at his home in Colchester and then back in the council house in Hounslow. The Defendant purported to record this as a “private fostering arrangement”. In the ensuing five years, the Claimant and his sister have been living in squalid conditions, without anyone who has parental responsibility for them. IF was negligent and frequently absent. Despite numerous warnings raised by the children and various social workers, Hounslow refused to take any significant steps to assist them. The house has fallen into disrepair and, in mid-2025, IF left without returning.

The Claimant contended that he had, as a matter of law, been “looked after” within the meaning of s.20 Children Act 1989 since the time of his father’s death. Hounslow argued that he was not, on the basis that he at no stage had appeared to them to require accommodation within the meaning of s.20(1). They argued that, as the Claimant had always been able to return home to the family address (first with RM, then with IF), he had access to accommodation all along. Therefore, he was not, they submitted, a looked after child.

The Court’s findings

Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, dismissed Hounslow’s arguments and upheld the Claimant’s claim for judicial review, and found that:

1. The evidence from the time of the father’s death demonstrated that Hounslow did not merely facilitate a “private fostering arrangement”, but that it “orchestrated the placement of a child who had no one else to care for him”, and was the ultimate “decision-maker”
2. After the mother’s secure tenancy had passed to the Claimant’s father, no further statutory successions were permitted. As such, after the expiry of a Notice to Quit in January 2021, the Claimant became a trespasser in Hounslow’s council home. The Defendant relied on DF v Essex City Council [2024] EWCA Civ 1545 to argue that, the position in property law notwithstanding, practically the Claimant did not require accommodation as Hounslow had no intention to evict him from the council home, such that him living there was not “precarious”. The Judge dismissed this argument and agreed with the Claimant’s analysis, finding that: “while the Defendant’s finding that the Claimant’s position was not precarious may not be impeachable, it was only not precarious because the Defendant was itself providing the Claimant with accommodation. By making a positive decision not to enforce its right to possession against the Claimant, and by creating a “use and occupation” account to regularise his stay, the Defendant was not merely observing a stable situation; it was, by its own forbearance and administrative action, providing that stability. It follows that the Defendant’s argument that the Claimant did not require accommodation because he was not being evicted would involve circular reasoning: the Claimant only had secure accommodation because the Defendant chose to provide it.”
3. Regarding Hounslow’s argument that the move into IF’s care in January 2021 (back to the council house) constituted a “private fostering arrangement” which obviated its s.20 duties, the requisite information (set out in R (D) v. Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 182) to be provided to private foster carers had not been given to IF until significantly later, such that “this bears the hallmarks of a retrospective attempt to categorise the arrangement to fit a desired financial outcome, rather than a genuine pre-existing private agreement”. When IF defaulted on rent, instead of evicting him Hounslow paid the arrears, such that Hounslow “(again) acknowledged that the Claimant required accommodation and provided it”.

The significance of this case primarily lies in point 2 above. DF v Essex leaves it open to local authorities to conclude that a child, who is presently trespassing in a house, is nevertheless not in need of accommodation because, as a matter of fact, another local authority is unlikely to evict them. This case makes clear that it is not open to a local authority to conclude that a trespasser child does not need accommodation because they themselves will not evict them. That circular reasoning just reinforces the point that they have decided to provide accommodation, thereby complying with their s.20 duties, not obviating them.

Kelly Everett, Senior Solicitor at CCLC, said: “For too long, children who have nobody to care for them have been let down by systems that are meant to protect them. This ruling makes clear that local authorities must meet their legal duties to vulnerable children, including recognising when a child needs to be treated as ‘looked after’ and ensuring they receive proper care, accommodation and support.

The judgment reinforces that informal arrangements and partial support cannot be used to avoid statutory responsibilities, and that children should not be left in legal limbo without the protections the law provides. Crucially, it recognises that a child’s legal status has profound consequences for their safety, stability and future, including access to the statutory support that flows from being a looked-after child as they approach adulthood.

This decision sends a strong and important message that children’s rights matter, that the law must be applied properly, and that families and carers are entitled to expect accountability, clarity and fairness from public bodies when caring for children in need.”

The full High Court judgment is available here.