Case No. Case-No.-CO-5942-2017

U lives on his own in a permanent, Brent Partnership studio flat. He has a double bunk bed and a sofa in the room which also has a small dining table and TV. There is a very small kitchen which can only comfortably hold one person at a time. There is limited storage and U's clothes and shoes are fitted between two small cupboards and an airing cupboard. The airing cupboard hosts a large boiler and includes the gas and electricity meter and fuse boxes. The clothes within the cupboard present a hazardous risk of fire and is in front of the front door and only exit to the 1st floor property. There should be safety checked by a professional in my view, prior to any plans to place. Overall the studio was reasonably tidy and of a good enough hygienic standard.”44. Under the heading “Recommendation” the social worker then responsible wrote: “I would not support the children coming to live with U under his present accommodation arrangements and without a more comprehensive assessment of how he would meet their full needs. I am not convinced about how he would be able meet the children unidentified needs, particularly considering their possible traumatic experiences.”45.This view was underlined by an email (subject “[U] 730487”) dated 21 October 2016 from Uloma Otuonye, a Council social worker, she asked Housing Option whether larger accommodation might be available:“We have completed a viability assessment and identified that he lives in a studio apartment, which is not suitable for three people i.e. 2 boys and maternal uncleWe are wondering if it is possible to provide them a bigger accommodation.Please can you look into this case for us as we are required to provide feedback to Head of Services soon.”46.K and his cousin arrived in the UK on 21 October. After first staying in hotel accommodation provided by the Home Office, the Claimant and his cousin were then given into the care of U, to live with him at his studio flat in London NW2 which had been considered in the viability assessment. It therefore appears that the decision was made to accommodate the boys with their uncle notwithstanding the views expressed above. It is common ground between the parties that with both nephews and uncle in residence it is statutorily overcrowded.47. This is of some importance since, while the other issues were apparently resolved, such as finance and education, the recommendation concerning the accommodation was not except that it was discussed in the subsequent CFA and U was advised to apply for a larger flat. It is important since it indicates from the outset that there was a real issue with the uncle’s flat as suitable accommodation and it should not have surprised the Council in July when it became clear that there were behavioural and relationship issues between K and his uncle. Discontent was expressed with the size of the flat as early as 1 December 2016 as appears below. 48.On 1 December 2016, the Council, having conducted a child and family assessment (“CFA”), again decided that U was capable of providing for K and M’s needs despite the accommodation being overcrowded. This was completed some 6 weeks after K and M took up residence and refers to a number of relevant matters including that the cousins had made advances in taking up educational opportunities:(1) Under “Emotional and behavioural development” it records that K 2 – “stated he is a happy person and enjoys being with people. However he find their accommodation to be too small and because of the number of people who live there is difficult to get a good night’s sleep”;(2) M made a similar comment – “He is happy to have a roof over his head, although the accommodation is too small for all of them and he would appreciate a bigger place, he is happy here”(3) Under “housing” it notes that – “The flat is too small and only big enough for a bunk bed. Uncle has informed housing that his nephews are with him and they were told to contact social services to help them”;(4) Similar comments are made under “Carer’s capacity to respond appropriately to Children’s needs” under “Basic Care”, that the flat “is not big enough for three people”. With regard to “emotional warmth” and “guidance and boundaries” there appeared to be no issues. (5) However, the “Danger Statement” noted concerns about “Whether the uncle can meet K & M’s everyday needs and provide positive parenting” and under “what we are worried about” the CFA noted “We are worried that they do not have adequate accommodation as they are sharing a studio flat”(6)The section “what needs to happen” noted that U was to approach housing for accommodation and to seek financial support but, notwithstanding the repeated concerns about the accommodation and the preceding assessment, it noted that the case was to be closed. In the “Views on assessment” it is stated that the uncle -“requested for support in getting a bigger accommodation, He was advised to contact housing and let them know that his circumstances has changed. U said that he had already done that and he was sent back to social services”.(7)Remarkably, in the light of the earlier assessment, having referred to educational and financial issues, the social worker’s analysis and recommendations stated:“This assessment has identified the need for a bigger accommodation as uncle lives in a studio flat from Brent Council which can only take a single bunk bed and no space of another bed. U has already approach[ed] his housing provider to let them know about his change of circumstances. It is understandable that housing may take a long time to be sorted out, however, the boys are happy that they have a place to live…Base[d] on the above it does not seem that there are any role for Brent Social care with this case at the moment. I would therefore suggest that the case be closed to the team.”49.This type of social services report is not to be read as if drafted by lawyers and it is necessary bear in mind its origin and function: see per Lord Dyson in