article
Love thy vulnerable neighbour
23 July 2008
In a landmark decision the High Court has ruled that local
authorities owe a duty of care towards vulnerable people in their
care.
The decision was handed down in the recent
case of X and Y v London Borough of Hounslow. This case has serious
implications for those local authorities working in
multi-disciplinary teams with members of the public, and
demonstrates that the Courts are not interested in understanding
how local authority departments might be subdivided. It
is of particular relevance to social care, housing and mental
health care providers. It has potential to affect all those
working with vulnerable children and adults and it is interesting
to view the decision in the light of the Law Commission’s
Announcement in June concerning proposed reform of social care
law.
The case involved a married couple with
learning difficulties. They lived, with Y’s two children (aged 11
and 8), in a two bedroom flat on the ninth floor of a block of
flats in Feltham, West London. The local authority was their
landlord and was involved in the provision of some support to the
family. The family were befriended and later taken advantage of by
a number of youths on the estate they lived on, culminating in a
particular weekend when the youths imprisoned the couple in their
own home and repeatedly assaulted and abused them, often in the
presence of the two children.
The couple alleged that the Council was under
a duty to move them into alternative accommodation at some point
before the relevant weekend. A failure to do so represented a
breach of the Council’s duty of care to them. The Council argued
that the couple were effectively challenging a failure to re-house
them and had no right to bring an action in negligence for breach
of duty.
The judge, Mr Justice Maddison, ruled that the
Council should be treated as a single entity since each of
departments were under a duty to communicate to each other any
information which suggested that the couple and their children
were, or might be in danger. The gradually mounting concern about
the welfare and safety of the couple made it reasonably foreseeable
from an early stage that they and/or their children would come to
serious harm.
The Council was the couple’s landlord and more
importantly, was aware of the couple’s disabilities, providing
social services for them and indeed their children. There was
therefore a close relationship. The local authority was not under a
duty to move the couple before the relevant weekend. However, they
became under a duty to protect them in response to the developing
crisis before the weekend in question. This narrow duty to move the
couple could be imposed in response to the ‘unusual but dangerous’
situation that had developed.
The Court concluded that there had been a
‘lack of proper co-operation and communication between the social
services and housing departments’ and that the local authority had
breached its duty of care. The judge held that the claim was
not based simply on narrow considerations of the couple’s housing
policy. The claim involved both the housing and social services
department and focussed on the interaction between them and the
manner in which they reacted to information received about the
couple. He concluded the couple had a right of action and the
Council’s subsequent breach of the duty of care owed to them had
caused the injury and loss alleged.
This case indicates a willingness by the
Courts to treat the acts and omissions of separate local authority
departments as one. In addition, it makes local authorities
accountable for ensuring that their internal relationships and
communications are effective. It has implications for
Children’s services departments, and similar consideration will
apply to education and social care professionals who may need to
share information, and responsibility for protecting children.
Several references were made throughout the
judgment to the unique features involved in the case that justified
the application of such a narrowly defined duty of care, but it is
to be recognised that the law in this area has become fragmented
and unclear. The Law Commission’s review of social care law will
cover adult residential care, community care, and support for
carers - the legislative frameworks for which have so far been put
together in piecemeal fashion. As a result, the Commission argues,
the law is fragmented and difficult to understand and apply. Let’s
hope it will result in a more coherent structure.
The London Borough of Hounslow is intending to
appeal the decision.
save to PDF