Judgment confirms councils cannot avoid section 20 duties through informal care arrangements
The High Court has ruled that the London Borough of Hounslow acted unlawfully in failing to treat a child as a “looked after” child under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, following a successful judicial review challenge.
The case concerned a child referred to as CLT, who argued that the local authority should have recognised his status as a looked-after child following the deaths of both parents in 2018 and 2020. The claim was brought with the support of Coram Children’s Legal Centre.
After the death of his father, CLT and his sibling returned to their family home with the agreement of the council and were cared for initially by a neighbour and later by a relative. The local authority recorded these arrangements as private family arrangements rather than accepting statutory responsibility for accommodating the children. Hounslow maintained that the child did not require accommodation under section 20, arguing that he continued to have access to housing and therefore did not fall within the statutory definition of a looked-after child.
The High Court rejected that position. Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, found that the council had effectively orchestrated the child’s placement after his father’s death and acted as the decision-maker in arranging his care. The court concluded that the authority’s involvement went beyond facilitating a private arrangement and amounted to the provision of accommodation under the statutory scheme.
A central issue in the case concerned the council’s argument that the child did not require accommodation because it had no intention of evicting him from the family home, even though he no longer held a legal right to remain there. The judge rejected this reasoning, finding it circular. The court held that the child’s stability arose from the council’s own decision not to enforce possession and from administrative steps taken by the authority, meaning it was in substance providing accommodation.
The court also examined the council’s reliance on a purported private fostering arrangement. Evidence showed that key information normally required for such arrangements had not been provided at the relevant time. The judge concluded that the classification appeared to have been applied retrospectively rather than reflecting a genuine private fostering agreement from the outset.
The judgment clarifies the legal position where local authorities allow children to remain in accommodation without formal recognition of their statutory status. It confirms that an authority cannot avoid duties under section 20 by relying on informal arrangements where, in reality, it has taken responsibility for accommodation and care.
The case also highlights the practical consequences of a child’s legal status. Recognition as a looked-after child affects entitlement to support, safeguarding responsibilities and future assistance as the child approaches adulthood. The court’s findings emphasise that statutory duties arise from the substance of arrangements rather than the labels applied to them.
Following the ruling, the council’s approach was found to be unlawful, and the judicial review claim succeeded. The decision provides further judicial guidance on the scope of local authority responsibilities toward children in need under the Children Act framework