UU -v- London Borough of Croydon (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim Number: AC-2024-LON-002738

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
Application for Interim Relief

14 August 2024

Before:
The Honourable Mrs Justice Foster DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
UU
(a child by his litigation friend and his father)

-v-

London Borough of Croydon

Order

Anonymity

  1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), anonymity is granted and there be substituted for all purposes in this claim, in place of reference to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to the letters “UU”.
  2. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked ‘Anonymised’. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, a person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of pleadings, a Judgment or Order from the Court records only if the pleadings, Judgment or Order have been anonymised such that the Claimant is referred to as UU in those documents and his address has been removed.
  3. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. In particular, disclosure of the Claimant’s name or address is prohibited.

Interim Relief

  1. The Defendant shall until 4pm Thursday 29 August 2024 or sooner Order of the Court accommodate the Claimant forthwith, by provision of accommodation to the Claimant until further Order.
  2. The Defendant shall until 4pm Thursday 29 August 2024 or sooner Order of the Court provide subsistence financial support to the Claimant.

Directions

  1. The time for filing and service of an Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence specified in CPR 54.8 shall be abridged. The Defendant shall, by 10.00 am on Wednesday 28 August 2024, file and serve its Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence. The Defendant may by the same time (but is not required to do so) file evidence relied on in response to the Claim.
  2. Following either (a) the Defendant’s compliance with paragraph 6 above; or (b) 10.00 am on Wednesday 28 August 202, whichever is the sooner, this case shall, as soon as possible, be referred to a Judge to consider what further directions should be made. (For the avoidance of doubt, at that stage the judge may decide the application for permission to apply for judicial review, give directions for expedition, or make directions on such other matters as are appropriate.)
  3. Liberty to apply to vary or to rescind this Order on 48 hours’ written notice by email to the Court and to the other parties.
  4. Costs reserved.

Dated this 14 day of August 2024

Observations

  1. It is appropriate to accommodate and support the Claimant in the short time it will take for the Defendant to respond under this Order. There is a draft Order from the representatives requiring the Defendant also to accommodate the father and litigation friend of the Claimant. In my judgement that is not appropriate: until very recently the father and son were not living together, and the father has had temporary accommodation with a friend, and the terms of his visa are NRPF. The father is not a Claimant.
  2. The Claimant UU is in a different position; his circumstances are unusual. I set out some detail. He was born in the UK and is British. He is a full-time student attending the Harris Professional Skills Sixth Form, studying a Business Level 3 Course and is due to start Year 13 on 4 September 2024. He does not have a job or income. Up until 21 July 2024, he lived with his mother, and younger siblings including for about 18 months with his mother’s new partner. After violent assault in the home against the Claimant by that partner, which the Claimant reported to the police, the Claimant left his home. The police arrested his mother’s partner who admitted the assault on him, and was cautioned. The Claimant, who believes his mother is unsupportive of him, was given a social worker by the Local Authority.
  3. The Claimant’s litigation friend is his father who has helped him since the violent incident. His father is a live-in carer not based in London, from Namibia, with leave to remain in the UK on family grounds, but NRPF – without recourse to public funds. He has no permanent accommodation nearby, but has stayed with a friend in a single bed spare room. The Claimant has a relation in Ipswich. The Claimant and his father have sought help over the last weeks from Croydon, spent five nights sleeping outside, and have exceptionally been given a few days’ charity accommodation and also 2 nights (to prevent them from sleeping rough), paid for by their solicitors Deighton Pierce Glynn. Otherwise, and from tonight they will be street homeless.
  4. It appears they have been told they are both ineligible because the father is NRPF (although that is not clear), and the Claimant’s social worker has also said he could go home to his mum’s house as there is a safety plan in place or he could stay with a relative of his mum’s in Ipswich – so is not homeless. This may be the crux of the Defendant’s position – it is not yet known as the PAP letter of 8 August giving about 24 hours to reply has not been responded to as yet. The Claimant also says he was told he was unable to make a homeless application because he was 17, and also that neither he nor his father could receive housing because neither was eligible for Universal Credit to meet the rental obligation. However, on 7 August 2024 the Claimant was given a homelessness team appointment for 19 September 2024 in standard form.
  5. The Claimant argues it is not reasonable for him to have to go back to his mother’s house, nor to leave the area of his studies. He also says in any event accommodation and some support should be provided whilst the authority make their enquiries and this has not been done.

Interim Relief

  1. With regard to interim relief, there is a serious matter to be tried. The Claimant is still technically a child; further he is also arguably vulnerable “as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation by reason of violence from another person or threats of violence”. There is a strong case the interim duty is owed to the Claimant and accommodation should be made available whilst the Defendant undertakes its investigations – and is given a chance to respond. Even if this is wrong, this course of action is appropriate applying the “test of lesser injustice’ [R v Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act 168, ex p Rhone Poulenc Rorer Ltd [1998] EuLR 127per Laws J, after Films Rover International Ltd v Canon Film Studios Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670, at [680]: “A fundamental principle is … that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been ‘wrong’ in the sense I have described”. ]

BY THE COURT