Fri, 12 Feb 2021
A simple call for assisted accommodation from the Defendant can involve an examination of the Local Authority’s duty to a vulnerable person calling for an examination of the complex relationship between different legislative frameworks (see SS 8,13,18-19 Care Act 2014, Section 6 Human Rights Act 1998, Section 149 Equality Act 2010 (public sector duty), Section 117 Mental Health 1983 and section 1 Localism Act 2011.)
Where the individual does not have immigration status issues of responsibility can arise, however, in R v AW, A AND Y [ 2007] EWCA CIV 266 [E151] #20 -#33 – #29 in referring to the division of responsibility between the infirm destitute asylum seekers/ failed asylum seeker (‘destitute plus’) and the able-bodied destitute failed asylum seeker, the court identified that failed asylum seekers who were ‘destitute plus’ are the responsibility of the LA.
Circumstances can be made all the more complicated, where the individual calling for support does not have status in the UK.
In a recent case of a Claimant R (Eileen Simister) v London Borough of Brent CO/4761/2020, permission has been granted on papers in respect of a Claimant, without status in the UK seeking the support under the Care Act.
The Claimant is a 77-year-old, suffering from age-related associated dementia and other health issues. After nearly twenty years of being in the UK, she finds herself street homeless. The pandemic has meant that, despite trying innumerable Immigration solicitors, she has not been able to, as of yet, find assistance to make an application for long residency discretionary leave under Paragraph 276ADE based on accumulated twenty years of private life. At the same time, she finds herself homeless. She has been able to get medical assistance, but she has no fixed abode, relying on charitable assistance. Her age and health conditions makes her vulnerable to COVID19.
Despite her destitute circumstances and making a request for a Care Act assessment so that she can be accommodated, the Defendant has ignored/ refused the request to carry out a Care Act assessment. It is argued that the Defendant has the power under Section 19 Care Act 2014 to provide the Claimant with any support that it could provide under provision of the Care Act 2014. It is argued that the Claimant requires supported accommodation under Section 8 Care At 2014, which means accommodation supported through the assistance of a social worker.
In the alternative reliance, is placed on section 1 Localism Act 2011 and it is contended that the Defendant has the power to provide accommodation and support, in the event that a breach of Human Rights, which results in this case by reason of her being ‘destitute plus’.
Whilst Interim Relief was refused, permission to Judicial Review was granted on papers and is to be heard in a substantive hearing.
Nabila Mallick is instructed by Lawstop solicitors in this matter.