Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 imposes a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ within their area. However, in practice, there are often refusals or delays in conducting an assessment or providing support. Assessments can be inaccurate, and decision-making can be of poor quality. Once support is provided, it is sometimes inadequate to meet the needs of the child or family.
Challenging a refusal to assess or support under section 17
The local authority must carry out an assessment if there is any realistic prospect that the child may be in need. The threshold to trigger a child in need assessment is very low. However, in practice, local authorities often refuse to assess.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R v LB Barnet ex. p. G [2003] UKHL 57
|
House of Lords decision that s17 imposes a duty on a local authority to undertake an assessment. |
|
R (C,T,M,U) v Southwark LBC [2016] EWCA Civ 707
|
Court of Appeal decision in relation to s17 subsistence. It sets out the requirements of a lawful assessment and guidance on s17 duty and powers.
|
|
Working Together to Safeguard Children, 2023
|
Statutory guidance which a local authority should follow during the assessment process. This confirms that s17 imposes a duty to undertake an assessment.
|
You can use this template letter to challenge the failure to assess.
Failure to provide interim support
It can take up to 45 working days to complete a child in need assessment, but if there’s an urgent need for support then the local authority can provide interim support on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. Interim support is available, but it can be challenging to get a local authority to provide it.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
Working Together to Safeguard Children, 2023
|
147: Action to meet a child's needs can begin even before assessment has concluded.
155: In some cases, the needs of the child will mean that a quick assessment will be required. In all cases, as practitioners identify needs during the assessment, they do not need to wait until the assessment concludes before providing support or commissioning services to support the child and their family. |
Sometimes a family will be refused an assessment on the basis that they have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF).
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
List of public funds |
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds--2/public-funds
Section 17 is not listed here.
|
|
Schedule 3 Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002 |
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/schedule/3
Individuals with LLR (NRPF) are not excluded by schedule 3.
|
Schedule 3 Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002 excludes some adult migrants (including people who are undocumented) from accessing support under section 17. However, the exclusion does not apply if the situation is so serious that a failure to provide support would breach human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. The exclusion under schedule 3 does not apply if the parent is in the UK lawfully (e.g. they have leave to remain).
If a family is excluded by schedule 3, the local authority should conduct a Human Rights Assessment to consider whether any human rights breach could be avoided by advising or assisting the family to return to their country of origin.
The local authority will not be able to advise or assist a family to return to their country of origin if there is a legal or practical barrier preventing their return:
If there is a legal or practical barrier preventing a family from returning to their country of origin, then social services must assess and provide support to avoid a breach of their human rights.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R (Clue) v Birmingham CC [2010] EWCA Civ 460 |
The Court of Appeal held that where not providing support would entail a breach of human rights, a local authority can consider whether that breach can be avoided by a family returning to their country of origin, and whether there are any impediments to return. The Court found that an outstanding immigration application (that was not hopeless or abusive) is an impediment to return.
|
|
R. (on the application of KA (Nigeria)) v Essex CC [2013] EWHC 43 (Fam) |
A local authority had erred in withdrawing financial support and assistance from a family which was intending to appeal against an immigration decision raising human rights issues, which was not obviously hopeless or abusive. |
| OA v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 2537
|
Where the outcome of an application made by a child may have a bearing on the parent’s immigration status, it should be treated as a legal barrier. This case applies where a child has made a nationality application to confirm their entitlement to citizenship, and can be extended to include children who are already registered as British. The full case is here and summary here. |
The definition of “in need” in section 17(10) is very broad. A child will be in need if:
A “child in need” for the purposes of section 17(10) is a child whose needs will not be properly met if social services do not provide services. However, if the parent is excluded by schedule 3 Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002 they will also have to demonstrate a breach of human rights (see section on ‘Immigration status’).
What can I do?
If an assessment has not been completed:
If an assessment has been completed:
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R. (on the application of OK and Others) v. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2010] EWCA Civ 1101 (Admin) |
Local authorities need to properly consider the support available and specifically identify where support will come from. It is insufficient for a local authority to say a child can be supported by their network without specifying particularly where and what kind of support the network can provide.
|
|
R (O) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 937 (Admin) |
The judge found that the duty of the local authority is to “take ‘reasonable steps to identify’ whether a child is in need.”
|
|
R (on the application of U and U) v Milton Keynes BC [2017] EWHC 3050 (Admin)
|
The local authority’s conclusion that a family had funds to access accommodation was correct, but their failure to account for the family’s inability to rent lawfully (under the Right to Rent) made their decision unlawful. The family might be able to stay in a succession of but this would likely render the children ‘in need’ in any event. |
|
R (JA) v Bexley LBC [2019] EWHC 130 (Admin) |
The local authority was overly reliant on inconsistencies and gaps in a client’s story, and did not properly evaluate other evidence in order to reach a conclusion that a family was not destitute. |
Where a child is ‘physically present’ in a local authority area, that authority will have a duty to assess. A child will be physically present if they are living, or if they attend school there. If the family is homeless, the child will be physically present in whichever area they most recently stayed
If the child is physically present in more than one local authority area (e.g. living in one borough and attending school in another), both will owe a duty to assess and you can approach either local authority. However, it is acceptable where more than one authority owes a duty to assess for the authorities to agree between themselves who will conduct the assessment, but this should not be to the detriment of a child by delaying the assessment and the provision of support.
Some local authorities wrongly apply the ‘local connections’ test used for homelessness applications under Part 7 Housing Act 1996. The only test for section 17 is physical presence.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R v Wandsworth LBC ex p Sandra Stewart [2001] EWHC 709 (Admin)
|
The test for “within the area” is “physical presence”. A child can be physically present in more than one area. If a child is physically present in more than one area, each local authority does not need to undertake its own assessment, but there is a need for cooperation between local authorities.
|
|
R (N) v Newham LBC [2013] EWHC 2475 (Admin)
|
A duty to assess under s17 did not depend on the child being ordinarily resident in a local authority’s area. Physical presence was the test.
|
|
R (BC) v Birmingham CC [2016] EWHC 3156 (Admin) |
Physical presence was both necessary and of itself sufficient to establish that a child was within a local authority’s area.
|
If you have approached a local authority in which you are physically present, and have been told to go to a different local authority instead, use this template letter to challenge that decision.
Family struggling to cooperate
Section 17 is voluntary and based on consent. If a family is struggling to cooperate, then the local authority can conclude that they have withdrawn consent. Section 17 assessments also rely on evidence gathering to determine whether the child is in need.
There might be lots of different reasons as to why a someone is struggling to provide evidence. It may be that they have a distrust of authorities and institutions, and they don’t feel comfortable sharing information. Or there may be communication issues or a breakdown in relations with the social worker.
Some local authorities may also have unreasonably high evidential requirements that prevent families from accessing support.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R (on the application of S and J) v Haringey LBC [2016] EWHC 3054 (Admin) |
It was determined that Haringey had erred in its decision to refuse to provide support on the basis that the mother had failed to provide details of her income and expenditure. It emerged that she had not been asked to provide these. This case is potentially useful if a client has not been given the opportunity to respond to claims against them before an assessment is concluded. |
Disbelieving the family and adverse inferences
Local authorities will sometimes find that a child is not in need because they do not believe the family’s claim of destitution. However, often there is a credible explanation to apparent inconsistencies or failure to provide information.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R. (on the application of OK and Others) v. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2017] EWHC 2449 (Admin)
|
Local authorities need to properly consider the support available and specifically identify where support will come from. It is insufficient for a local authority to say a child can be supported by their network without specifying particularly where and what kind of support the network can provide.
|
|
R (O) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 937 (Admin) |
The judge found that the duty of the local authority is to “take ‘reasonable steps to identify’ whether a child is in need.”
|
|
R (JA) v Bexley LBC [2019] EWHC 130 (Admin) |
The local authority was overly reliant on inconsistencies and gaps in a client’s story, and did not properly evaluate other evidence in order to reach a conclusion that a family was not destitute. |
As long as it is not contrary to the welfare of the child, section 17(1)(b) provides that a local authority should promote the upbringing of children in need “by their families.”
Children can only be taken into care in two broad circumstances. Firstly, if the parent consents under section 20 CA 1989. Secondly, if there are safeguarding concerns and there is a court order following a section 47 CA 1989 assessment. Destitution alone is not a strong enough reason to take the children into care where section 17 support can be provided instead. If the parent cannot take care of the child, the local authority should provide support to ensure they can.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
Section 17(1)(b) Children Act 1989 |
Provides that a local authority should promote the upbringing of children in need “by their families”.
|
|
Section 47 Children Act 1989 |
If you have asked the local authority for support and have been told that the only support available is to take the child into care, use this template letter to challenge that decision.
Section 4 support (accommodation and subsistence) is available from the Home Office for some destitute refused asylum seekers who have come to the end of their appeals process, are Appeal Rights Exhausted (ARE) and meet the narrow criteria set by the Home Office.
If a family is entitled to support under section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, then they can either access section 4 or section 17 support. However, the family cannot be compelled to apply for section 4 support instead of requesting section 17 support from the local authority.
Support provided under section 4 may not be sufficient to meet a child’s assessed needs. Section 4 is intended to provide the bare minimum level of support to prevent destitution and is not provided in cash limiting access to some items and services. Whilst section 17 is intended to promote the welfare and best interests of the child and is therefore able to provide a much higher standard of support focused upon the individual needs of the child.
What can I do?
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R (ES) v LB Barking and Dagenham [2013] EWHC 691 (Admin) |
A local authority cannot delay carrying out an assessment pending provision of Section 4 support. |
|
VC & Ors, R (on the application of) v Newcastle City Council [2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin) |
Section 17 support takes precedence over potential Section 4 asylum support; a local authority cannot refuse to assess under s17 just because a family may be entitled to s4. Section 4 support can only be relied on for discharge of s17 duty where the Secretary of State was willing and able (or if not willing could be compelled) to provide Section 4 support to a family, and Section 4 support would be sufficient to meet a child’s assessed needs. |
|
R (on the application of K) v Newcastle City Council [2011] EWHC 2673 |
As above in VC & Ors. |
Challenging inadequate section 17 support
The High Court determined that any amount which falls below section 4 asylum support rates (£49.18 per person per week) was very unlikely to meet a child’s essential needs. Any amount of section 17 subsistence support which falls below this is therefore likely to be challengeable (as per R (VC) v Newcastle CC [2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin).
A more recent case (BCD v Birmingham Children’s Trust [2023] EWHC 137 (Admin) determined that a higher ‘welfare standard’ of support should be provided for children whose parents have limited leave to remain with NRPF. This 'welfare standard' of support must promote the child’s welfare and therefore is likely to be much higher than section 4 asylum support rates.
What can I do?
If the amount falls below section 4 and the family receives no other income:
If the amount is above section 4 or the family receives other income:
If the amount falls below section 4 or is otherwise inadequate for the families’ needs and the parents have limited leave to remain with NRPF:
|
Case law or guidance |
Summary |
|
R (VC and others) v Newcastle CC [2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin) |
Section 4 asylum support rates are 'intended to provide the minimum support necessary to avoid breach of a person’s Convention rights.'
|
|
R. (on the application of Mensah) v Salford City Council [2014] EWHC 3537 (Admin) |
Determined it is lawful for local authorities use section 4 asylum rates as a guide to determining their own policy for section 17 rates.
|
|
R (on the application of PO, KO and RO) v Newham LBC [2014] EWHC 2561 (Admin) |
Following a lawful assessment, a local authority should provide subsistence rates that are likely to meet the subsistence needs of a destitute family (i.e. should properly consider the family’s actual costs and circumstances, rather than applying a blanket policy). |
|
BCD v Birmingham Children’s Trust [2023] EWHC 137 (Admin)
|
This case called for a higher ‘welfare standard’ of support under section 17 for children whose parents have limited leave to remain with NRPF. This 'welfare standard' of support must promote the child’s welfare and therefore is likely to be much higher than asylum support rates. In BCD’s case, it was equivalent to the fostering allowance of £510 per week. |
Please note, if seeking subsistence at the higher ‘welfare standard’ of support—please note that the distinction drawn in this case leaves children whose parents are undocumented on a ‘subsistence standard’ of support tied to asylum support rates. Although this is good news for those children whose parents have leave, the case draws a discriminatory distinction between the two groups in the allocation of subsistence. Project 17 has concerns that if local authorities currently provide Universal Credit equivalent rates for people who are undocumented, then advocating for the rates set out in the BCD case could encourage local authorities to lower the rate of support for people who are undocumented
If social services are currently providing support for your client, but the support is insufficient to meet the basic needs of the family, use this template letter to request a new assessment with a view to providing increased support.
Families may be housed outside of their local area or even town/city. Section 17 accommodation is most commonly provided in shared HMO’s, B&Bs, or hostels. Occasionally, families will be offered self-contained accommodation.
As there is so little guidance or caselaw on the adequacy of accommodation, it can be difficult to challenge the standard of accommodation provided.
What can I do?
|
Caselaw or guidance |
Summary |
|
Statutory Overcrowding |
Room standard and space standard https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/check_if_your_home_is_overcrowded_by_law
|
|
R (on the application of AE) v Brent LBC [2018] EWHC 2574 (Admin) |
The reasonableness of a school commute should take into account not just time but also its affordability and complexity. |
Sometimes, a local authority will decide to not provide support to the whole family. This is often reflected in the level of subsistence the family receives.
What can I do?
Make sure each family member has been considered in the calculation of subsistence (see previous section on subsistence for more details) and room allocation (see Shelter’s guides).
The local authority might argue that adult dependents (e.g. children over 18) cannot be supported under section 17. This can be addressed by showing that the adult dependent plays a role in safeguarding and promoting the welfare the child under 18, for example by providing childcare while the parent is at work.
|
Caselaw or guidance |
Summary |
|
Section 17(3) CA 1989 |
“Any service provided by an authority in the exercise of functions conferred on them by this section may be provided for the family of a particular child in need or for any member of his family [..]”
Makes it clear that a local authority has the power to provide support to the entire family.
|
|
R. (on the application of PO, KO and RO) v Newham LBC [2014] EWHC 2561 (Admin) |
Local authority had erred in its decision to provide financial support solely to the children. The judge determined that as “the Council are seeking to keep the family together when that is in the children's interests and to respect their Convention rights, it would make no sense to leave the adults to starve.”
|
Case Law
Laws in the UK consist of primary and secondary legislation, enacted by the legislative (Parliament) and executive (Prime Minister/Cabinet) branches respectively. However, where there is a question which is not specifically covered by legislation, or where there is disagreement as to the interpretation of that legislation, a particular case can set a legal precedent, and become the standard against which other cases are then decided. Case law introduces a new legal principle, or settles a contentious legal question; at least, until such time as it might be overturned or superseded by a new judgement. Since cases can be overturned by higher courts, or their decisions made obsolete by more recent cases, it is important to ensure that your sources are up to date if you choose to cite case law when presenting a case to a local authority. This list was last updated in November 2022, so please be mindful of this when utilising the specific cases below.
This factsheet will be mostly focused on providing a list of useful cases. For those who are keen to learn more about the more technical aspects of reading case law, there is a useful guide on the SOAS library website: https://www.soas.ac.uk/library/subjects/law/research/file70250.pdf
How to use case law effectively
Case law can be a good tool for reminding another party of clear legal precedent, which may help when arguing for a specific outcome in line with that precedent. When used well, it should be just one part of a larger, well-constructed case, using other resources such as a local authority’s own policy documents, the Working Together To Safeguard Children guidance, and, of course, clearly laid out factual information about your client’s circumstances and the relevant sections of The Children Act 1989. When citing case law to support your argument, it is important to make clear how it does so; it is no good to simply cite it with no explanation and hope that it will sound authoritative. For this reason, it is important to ensure that you are using a case which is directly relevant to the particular point which you are arguing.
Example
You are supporting a family who do not currently have any sort of leave to remain in the UK, but they do have an outstanding application with the Home Office. The local authority is refusing to support the family, and are saying that they should return to their country of origin. You could use the case of Clue (see below, under “Schedule 3 NIAA 2002”), and write something along these lines:
As you are aware, R (Clue) v Birmingham City Council [2011] 1 WLR 99 confirmed that where an applicant has an outstanding immigration matter that is not hopeless or abusive, support under section 17 should not be withheld where doing so would have the effect of requiring the person to leave the UK and forfeit the immigration claim. The family are waiting for their immigration application to be decided. As such, the local authority is not in a position to discharge its duty by advising the family to return to their country of origin.
| Reason for challenge | Case law | Description |
| Child is said to not be “within the area” | R (on the application of N) v Newham LBC [2013] EWHC 2457 (Admin) | Physical presence is enough to grant that a child is ‘within the area’ of a local authority. |
| R v Wandsworth LBC ex p Sandra Stewart [2001] EWHC 709 (Admin) | This case laid out that mere physical presence was enough to grant that a child is ‘within the area’ of a local authority. Additionally, if a child is within the area of more than one local authority, they both/all have a potential duty to assess. Ideally, in this situation, the local authorities in question should liaise with each other to agree which of them will conduct the Child in Need assessment. | |
| R (on the application of BC) v Birmingham City Council [2016] EWHC 3156 (Admin) | Determined that physical presence is both necessary and sufficient to constitute ‘within the area’. | |
| Family is said to be excluded by Schedule 3 NIAA 2002 | R (on the application of Clue) v Birmingham City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 460 | Set out that, if a family are excluded from social services support by Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, but are awaiting the result of a pending immigration application which is not obviously hopeless or abusive, then social services must not automatically preclude the family from an assessment. A hopeless or abusive application would be one in which it is patently obvious that, for example, the sole purpose of the application is to buy time, and there is no case for it to succeed. An extreme example might be an application for leave to remain as a spouse, where the applicant is not in a relationship. In other words, a local authority cannot predict immigration decisions and use this as a basis to refuse to assess. |
| R (on the application of KA (Nigeria)) v Essex CC [2013] EWHC 43 (Admin) | A local authority cannot predict immigration decisions, as immigration decisions are not within its statutory powers to make. This particular case refers to a local authority’s decision to withdraw existing support from a family who had been refused leave and were planning to appeal. | |
| OA v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 2537 | Where the outcome of an application made by a child may have a bearing on the parent’s immigration status, it should be treated as a legal barrier. This case applies where a child has made a nationality application to confirm their entitlement to citizenship, and can be extended to include children who are already registered as British. The full case is here and summary here. | |
| Subsistence Issues | R (on the application of PO, KO and RO) v Newham LBC [2014] EWHC 2561 | Following a lawful assessment, a local authority should provide subsistence rates that are likely to meet the subsistence needs of a destitute family (i.e. should properly consider the family’s actual costs and circumstances, rather than applying a blanket policy). The court also said: “if the Council are seeking to keep the family together when that is in the children’s interests and to respect their Convention rights, it would make no sense to leave the adults to starve”. |
| Mensah v Salford City Council & Bello v Salford City Council [2014] EWHC 3537 (Admin) | It is lawful for local authorities to pay subsistence rates equal to the rates paid to refused asylum seekers, if that support is sufficient to meet the needs of the child. | |
| BCD v Birmingham Children’s Trust [2023] EWHC 137 |
This case called for a higher ‘welfare standard’ of support under section 17 for children whose parents have limited leave to remain with NRPF. This 'welfare standard' of support must promote the child’s welfare and therefore is likely to be much higher than asylum support rates. In BCD’s case, this rate was equivalent to the fostering allowance of £510 per week. However, the distinction drawn in this case leaves children whose parents are undocumented on a ‘subsistence standard’ of support tied to asylum support rates. Although this is good news for those children whose parents have leave, the case draws a discriminatory distinction between the two groups in the allocation of subsistence. Furthermore, Project 17 has concerns that if local authorities currently provide Universal Credit equivalent rates for people who are undocumented (which is rare!), then advocating for the rates set out in the BCD case could encourage local authorities to lower the rate of support for people who are undocumented. In light of BCD, some families' subsistence may automatically be increased by the local authority. If not, you can use this caselaw to advocate for higher subsistence. You can read more here: https://www.centralenglandlc.org.uk/news/bct-s17-support-families |
|
| Accommodation Issues | R (on the application of AE) v Brent LBC [2018] EWHC 2574 (Admin) | The 'reasonableness' of a school commute should take into account not just time but also its affordability and complexity. |
| Duty to Reassess | R (CO & Anor) v LB Lewisham Council (16 June 2017) | A local authority has a duty to reassess a child in order to properly consider new evidence which may arise. |
| Refusal of Support | R (on the application of S and J) v Haringey LBC [2016] EWHC 2692 (Admin) | This case quashed a refusal of support by Haringey. They had determined that a mother’s two children were not in need, as she had failed to provide details of her income and expenditure. However, it emerged that she had not been asked to provide these. |
| R (JA) v Bexley LBC [2019] EWHC 130 (Admin) | The family had not been given the opportunity to respond to claims against them before an assessment is concluded. | |
| R (on the application of OK) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2017] |
Failure to conduct a full and thorough assessment. Barking & Dagenham had assessed a family 4 times over the course of 3 months, and on each occasion had found the children not to be in need. However, they had not properly considered or investigated the evidence provided by the family, and had not properly justified why that evidence was not to be believed. | |
| R (on the application of U and U) v Milton Keynes BC [2017] EWHC 3050 (Admin) | A local authority’s conclusion that a family had funds to access accommodation was correct, but their failure to account for the family’s inability to rent lawfully (under the Right to Rent) made their decision unlawful. The family might be able to stay in a succession of B&Bs, but this would likely render the children ‘in need’ in any event. | |
| R (JA) v Bexley LBC [2019] EWHC 130 (Admin) |
The local authority was overly reliant on inconsistencies and gaps in a client’s story, and did not properly evaluate other evidence in order to reach a conclusion that a family was not destitute. | |
| Section 4 Asylum Support | R (ES) v LB Barking and Dagenham [2013] EWHC 691 | A local authority cannot delay carrying out an assessment pending provision of Section 4 support. |
| VC & Ors, R (on the application of) v Newcastle City Council [2011] EWHC 2673 (Admin) | Section 17 support takes precedence over potential Section 4 asylum support; a local authority cannot refuse to assess under s17 just because a family may be entitled to s4. A citation from the judgement itself says that: “…in practical terms, and whatever the theoretical possibilities, a local authority supporting a child who is assessed as being “in need” is very unlikely in the general run of such cases to be able to justify the discontinuance of such support by reliance upon section 4”. Section 4 support can only be relied on for discharge of s17 duty where the Secretary of State was willing and able (or if not willing could be compelled) to provide Section 4 support to a family, and Section 4 support would be sufficient to meet a child’s assessed needs. | |
| R (on the application of K) v Newcastle City Council [2011] EWHC 2673 | As above in VC & Ors. | |
| Providing support for another adult family member | R (on the application of OA) v Bexley LBC [2020] EWHC 1107 (Admin) | The Court decided that local authorities’ duties under s17 extend to providing accommodation and family support to another adult family member, who is not the parent of the child, if it is reasonably concluded that that person is bringing up the child, looking after him/her, safeguarding and promoting his/her welfare, and thereby meeting the child’s needs. |
| ‘Adverse Inferences’ cases | R (on the application of AA) v Southwark LBC [2020] EWHC 2487 (Admin) | The Court reiterated the duty to put relevant matters to the applicant before making an adverse finding of fact, although the local authority is not obliged to adopt a particular procedure (e.g a ‘minded to’ procedure or a face to face meeting). The local authority is also obliged to make proper enquiries. Proper enquiries are either enquiries suggested by the applicant or enquiries which no reasonable authority could fail to carry out in the circumstances. |
Judicial Review
Sometimes advocacy alone is not sufficient in changing the local authority’s decision. In these cases, you should contact a community care solicitor who can provide legal advice about Judicial Review.
Judicial review is a legal procedure that enables the court to assess whether the local authority has acted lawfully.
You can find a solicitor on http://find-legal-advice.justice.gov.uk
Complaining to Children's Services/NRPF Teams
You can make a complaint against your local authority’s Children’s Services or No Recourse to Public Funds Team if you are not happy with the way you were treated. For example, you could complain if you were wrongly refused support, or if you were not treated with respect by Council staff.
Please be aware that complaints can take a long time to be processed, so if your situation is very urgent, you might want to seek advice instead of making a complaint. It is normally better to make a complaint after your immediate problems have been resolved if you are not happy with how your case was handled.
Why should I make a complaint?
We think it’s important that people who have experienced poor treatment make complaints. Without a complaint, there are often no consequences for the staff members or local authority when things go wrong. This means other families might experience the same problems you faced.
Complaints can improve the situation for everybody:
The problems families with no recourse to public funds face when they approach local authorities for support are not isolated issues. We see the same issues happening over and over again. We’re really concerned that these issues are getting worse and we believe complaints will help to stop families being treated so badly.
Complaints can improve the situation for you:
Complaints are also a way for you to say that you know something went wrong and that you expect something to be done about it.
To make a complaint, you’ll need to write a letter to the Council. This should state that you are making a formal complaint against Children’s Services or the No Recourse to Public Funds Team.
In the letter, you should try to clearly explain the problem and what you think went wrong. It’s important to be as specific as possible:
If you have any evidence to help you prove what happened, it’s very useful to send this to the Council with your complaint.
Please use our complaint template letter to help you.
There are specific complaints departments within local authorities who will deal with your complaint. If you are in London, you can find their address here. Otherwise, you can search for it on the internet.
If you want support to make a complaint, you can contact your local councillors.
You are entitled to use the complaints process and you should not be penalised for making a complaint.
Things should get better if you make a complaint, not worse.
If you are concerned about making a complaint, speak to your adviser.
If you feel you are being penalised for making a complaint, please get in touch with us so we can support you.
How should the Council respond?
Each local authority has a different complaints process, but complaints involving children’s social should follow the statutory process below:
Stage 1
Stage 1 is a local resolution stage. When a complaint is first brought to the council, it should try to resolve it and provide a response. This stage should be completed within 10 working days, unless the matter is very complex and an extension is agreed with the complainant.
Stage 2
Stage 2 is the investigation stage. If the complaint cannot be resolved at Stage 1, the complainant can request a full investigation leading to a report. The council must then provide a response to the report, either accepting or disputing its findings. This stage should be completed (i.e. including the council’s response) within 25 working days (or 65 if there are good reasons). At Stage 2 the investigation should be carried out by an investigating officer who does not have line management for anyone involved in the complaint. It should be overseen by an independent person who should not be an employee of the council.
A request for a Review Panel must be made within 20 days of the council’s adjudication. The Panel must meet within 30 days of a request.
Stage 3
Stage 3 is the review stage. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, s/he can ask for the complaint to be considered by a Review Panel. Again the council has to respond to the Review Panel’s findings. The Review Panel should be made up of three independent people. Within 5 days of the panel reaching a conclusion, its findings must be issued. The local authority should respond to the findings within 15 days.
The complainant has a right to progress through all stages of the procedure if they so wish.
Local Government Ombudsman
The Local Government Ombudsman is an independent body that investigates complaints made against local authorities. The LGO is the final stage for complaints.
The LGO will normally expect clients to go through all stages of a local authority’s complaints process before asking them to investigate. However, if you had not had a response within a reasonable time then you may be able to refer the complaint to the LGO at an earlier stage.
The LGO will first assess whether they can investigate the complaint. If they decide that the complaint can be investigated, they are likely to contact you and the council for further information.
Final decisions are published on their website, but real names are not used. Identifying details can also be changed.
We have tried to anticipate the most common problems when accessing support for NRPF clients, and have provided template letters accordingly. However, if you think it would be helpful for us to create templates covering other issues, please get in touch to let us know. You can email us at [email protected].
Cookie Notice
By clicking “Allow All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation and analyse site use.