![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> O, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2016] EWHC 937 (Admin) (28 April 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/937.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 937 (Admin) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
OF
JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o
r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of
the High Court)
____________________
R (![]() ![]() ![]() O (and ![]() |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
LONDON BOROUGH ![]() ![]() ![]() | Defendant |
____________________
Osbornes
Solicitors) for the Claimant
Ms Sian Davies (instructed by Lambeth
Legal Services) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 9 March 2016
____________________
VERSION
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Helen Mountfield QC :
Introduction
The legal framework
i) to safeguard and promote the welfareof
children within their area who are in need; and
ii) so far as is consistent with that duty to promote the upbringing
of
such children by their families.
"What a public authority decided should in principle be ascertainedobjectively
by considering how the document communicating the decision would reasonably be understood, and not by enquiring into what the author
of
the document meant to say
or
what was privately in his mind at the time when he wrote the document".
That is the approach I have taken in considering the extent of
enquiry undertaken
on
the facts
of
this case.
The facts
Immigration history
Assessment and litigation history
Accounts of
housing and subsistence history
The content of
the assessments
The first NRPF assessment – April 2015
The Second NRPF assessment
i) The accounts given in the first NRPF assessment dated April 2015;ii) The assessing social worker
visited
![]()
O
and PO in their interim accommodation and questioned PO
on
17 July 2015. She was asked about apparent inconsistencies in her account
on
11 September 2015. The assessing social worker
visited
PO and met her again
on
7 September 2015 and invited her to comment
on
the draft assessment. At this meeting,
various
questions were put to PO. In particular:
a)One
![]()
of
the addresses which PO said they had lived when
O
was born did not exist. This was put to PO and she provided no explanation.
b) PO had provided bank account details which showed that – unlike in the earlier assessment where she had received a numberof
payments from an Eze CC, there were no such payments. She was asked if this was
O's
father who was also called Eze. She said not, but would not provide a surname for Eze CC.
c) PO said that the money which had been seen going through her account in the first assessment was money she had been given by Eze CC and CO, but this was to give to someone called "Abby". When challenged as to why she had then spent this money, PO said she was meant to give it to Abby but had spent iton
herself. (PO now accepts that this was not a true account: she now says she was in fact paid for working by Eze CC and CO, but gave an untrue account to protect them because this was illegal work, in breach
of
her presence conditions in the UK).
d) She was specifically asked for herviews
![]()
of
the assessment but maintained that she was destitute. She was
offered
an
opportunity
to respond to
or
correct any issues with which she specifically disagreed but did not do so.
iii) Further,
on
11 August 2015 – the assessing social worker spoke to
O
privately without her mother hearing the conversation. He asked her where she went by train and
O
answered that "they go by train to
visit
Uncle Michael [E]". She added that they sometimes stay with Uncle Michael". This was inconsistent with what
O's
mother, PO, had told the social worker, which was that they had not stayed with Michael E since his mother had died. This apparent inconsistency was put to the mother, who said that
O
was wrong.
iv) Michael E, Eze CC and Ms J were all contacted and asked to answer questions about this, but did not co-
operate
![]()
or
provide full answers to enquiries.
v)
PO was asked to provide contact details for Eze CC so that the assessing social worker could ask him questions but she was
very
cagey about doing so and would
only
show the social worker the telephone number
on
her phone after she had been to the bathroom with her phone and returned.
Only
a mobile phone number was provided as a source
of
contact for "Eze CC".
vi)
A meeting was also convened
on
20
October
2015, between PO, the assessing social worker's team manager, the service manager and the mother's representative to discus the mother's complaint about the assessment
outcome.
She was invited to give any further information but declined to do so.
Grounds
Ground 1
Ground 2
i) The fact that PO had been assisted by friends with accommodation for the past five years sinceO's
birth;
ii)
O's
explanation that they sometimes stayed with the E family and "uncle Michael" which was apparently inconsistent with PO's case that she had not stayed at the E family household since Mrs E's death when
O
was
only
two years
old;
![]()
iii) Michael E's failure to respond to enquiries, and Ms J's failure to respond to further enquiries (having co-
operated
with the first NRPF assessment);
iv) The lack
of
explanation for why Ms J would not continue to accommodate PO and
O
which she had been doing at the time
of
the first assessment;
v)
![]()
Lambeth's
doubts as to PO's credibility in the light
of
her implausible initial account
of
why there had been, in April 2015, money in her account (which she has since admitted was untrue) and apparent inconsistencies in her evidence, as noted above.