In LR v Coventry City Council [2025] EWHC 20 (Admin), the High Court quashed the section 17 Children Act 1989 assessment of a vulnerable family by Coventry City Council on the grounds that the assessment was irrational and that the Council misdirected itself in law. The Court went on to suggest that the Defendant should “urgently review” its policy in relation to s.17 assessments and provision for NRPF families.

Ranjiv Khubber and Serena Sekhon represented the Claimant.

The Claimant, a child, and her family, who have no recourse to public funds (NRPF) were assessed as being in need for the purposes of the children in need provisions at section 17 of the Children Act 1989. However, the Defendant local authority effectively limited the amount of financial support given to the family to the level provided to asylum seekers under unrelated Asylum Support regulations.

The Claimant challenged this on four grounds:

  • That the level of financial assistance was unlawful as it failed to meet the Claimant’s assessed needs and avoid a breach of Article 8 ECHR, and that s.17 financial provision to overstayer families is not “capped” by paragraph 3, Schedule 3 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
  • That the Defendant had misdirected itself in law;
  • That the amount of support was irrational; and
  • That the Defendant’s policy in relation to s.17 provision to families with NRPF was unlawful.

In relation to ground one, HHJ Tindal held that there was no engagement or breach of Article 8 ECHR and that financial provision was indeed “capped” or “restricted” in the circumstances by paragraph 3, Schedule 3 Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

The Court held that the Defendant had misdirected itself in law by effectively restricting the family’s assistance to statutory asylum support rates, and/or had unlawfully fettered its discretion to provide support directly to the children under Paragraph 2, Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

The Judge further found that the Defendant’s conduct met the very high bar of irrationality. The Court noted that the s.17 assessment was internally inconsistent and went on to find also that the failure to increase support was not rationally consistent with the duties in s.17 CA 1989.

Although he ultimately found that the Defendant’s NRPF policy was lawful when read as a whole, the Judge described it as “badly-drafted” and suggested how it could have been improved. Importantly, he stated at [138] that “the Defendant should urgently review its NRPF policy, as there may be other decision-makers led astray by it.”

The Judge declared the assessment to be unlawful and quashed it. The Local Authority must now undertake a fresh assessment.

Ranjiv and Serena were instructed by Michael Bates and Kasper Meidell of the Central England Law Centre.

The judgment is available on BAILII here.