Too much? Did Surrey accidentally accommodate BC under section 20?
Public Law and Judicial Review
The last article in this series addresses an issue which could only arise if Surrey owed BC a section 20 duty, and the Court had already ruled that the decision that the duty had not arisen was one that was reasonably reached.
The last question was whether BC had been accommodated as a matter of fact by Surrey, given that they did not mean to do so, when the Youth Worker picked him up from hospital and took him back to his accommodation of choice, K’s home.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in R (G) v Southwark LBC [2009] 1 WLR 1299, and to the speech of Lady Hale at paragraph 26(4). They identified that what the youth worker did that day was “help with accommodation”, rather than accommodation itself. The accommodation was accommodation he had found for himself. He had been staying there before he was hospitalised, and told the youth worker he was happy and comfortable there. He struggled to pay for it, but the Youth Worker helped him sort that out. “She had a hand in resolving the problem but did not play a central or major role in arranging the accommodation.”
The Judge was therefore wrong to find that this was accommodation arranged by Surrey in accordance with section 20.
Even if the section 20 had been owed, therefore, BC was never accommodated by Surrey before his 18th birthday and therefore the continuing care duties did not arise.
BC’s cross-appeal was also dismissed. There was nothing to show that the accommodation BC had from 18 September 2019 onwards was arranged by Surrey.
Catherine Rowlands appeared for Surrey County Council.