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

, similar to those advanced by Mr Carter here, he held:“30 Mr Cragg submitted … that the Southwark case was decided on its specific facts in circumstances where a social worker expressly requested that the Claimant look after a child who otherwise would have had nowhere to live; by contrast, he submitted, in the present case the Claimant already had somewhere to live when the Defendant became involved and therefore a duty under s. 20 did not arise.31 In my view there is no material distinction between the two cases. Until 26 November 2003 the Claimant was not living with the Leydens other than as part of “a temporary arrangement”. On that day the Defendant did play a central ( or “major”, see Southwark , para 49) role in allowing the Claimant to stay with Mrs Leyden when the Claimant said that she wished to live with her. Having ascertained and taken into account the Claimant's views, Ms. Joyce spoke to Mrs Leyden, informed her what the Claimant wanted and, I infer, asked her whether she was agreeable to it. Further on various occasions between 26 November 2003 and January 2004 Ms. Joyce suggested and arranged and re-arranged a Planning Meeting to plan for Sarah's future. Thus through Ms. Joyce the Defendant played and intended to continue to play a significant role in the arrangements for the Claimant's future that included her living with Mrs Leyden.32 Ms. Joyce says that she “ensured that Mrs Leyden was claiming all the relevant benefits in respect of Sarah” (Witness Statement, para. 11). It is reasonable to infer that is what she told Mrs Leyden. However the benefits Mrs Leyden received were limited to section 17 discretionary assistance. It was not explained to Mrs Leyden that she would not be receiving financial support from the Defendant for looking after the Claimant because the Defendant was not responsible for the Claimant ( as she should have been told if that was the Defendant's position); rather she was left in the unsatisfactory position where she agreed to allow the Claimant to live with her permanently, but was not told the basis on which that would be, namely, one that would not involve the Defendant or any other party being obliged to provide financial support.33 I am satisfied that as at 26 November 2003 the Claimant, who it is agreed was a child in need, required accommodation as Mr Collins was at the time “prevented” from providing her with suitable care. After his death on 16 December 2003 there was no person who had parental responsibility for her.34 In my judgment, in the circumstances of the present case, the Defendant did have a duty to provide accommodation to the Claimant under s.20 of the 1989 Act and I find, on the facts, that a placement was made with Mrs Leyden under s.23(2) .”98.In