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

, if K was not a FRC then the Council has failed to consider whether to treat him as such within its discretion. 86. For the reasons I set out below, the judicial review succeeds on Grounds 1 and 2 and I do not need to deal with Ground 3 since it is an alternative to Ground 2. Ground 1 87. This ground is now conceded by the Council as I have already noted. 88. However, Mr Carter submitted that the Council had discharged its duty by arranging for the cousins to return to their uncle’s flat in October 2017 and submitted that it was a matter for the Council’s judgment that the accommodation was suitable. 89.In the light of the additional disclosure provided after the hearing began, I am not satisfied that the Council discharged its duty under s. 20 given the failure to deal with the root problem of finding suitable accommodation which was apparent from the 2016 viability assessment. Ms Low, who makes clear her view that she thought K was being provided with suitable accommodation and made himself homeless says in her statement:“Given the possible traumatic experiences that K may have experienced in being separated from his family and in his journey from Sudan to the UK, it is our view that K’s uncle who K identified as the only member of his family in the UK who could provide care for him would be best placed to continue to care and support K. Whilst the Local Authority acknowledge that K has reported difficulties in the relationship with his uncle, overall they seem to get along well. K’s main objection stems from the size of the shared accommodation, however obtaining larger housing takes time and K should not have given up the accommodation and family care that he was receiving because of this.”90.However, to my mind this ignores the accommodation as the cause of the problems and does not acknowledge that K was sufficiently unhappy with the Council’s proposals to prefer to sofa surf or to sleep rough in the difficult circumstances he has described.91.To the extent necessary, therefore, I consider the assessments that were made in the 2017 CFA were unreasonable having regard to the earlier contrary assessments of the inadequacy of the flat and the facts. It is questionable also whether the action of the Council protected K’s welfare and, in my view, it appears to have put it at risk.92.I will return to aspects of the s. 20 duty under Ground 2. Ground 2 93. As already mentioned, this ground was the focus of argument at the hearing. 94. Ms Williams, for K, submitted that: (1) The Council not only failed to acknowledge its s. 20 duty but if, as it now contends, K left care and ceased to be eligible on 11 October, did not follow the requirements imposed by law as to the ending of the s. 20 duty and leaving care; (2) In any event, ignoring the characterisation which the Council gave to its actions on the ending of K’s placement at the Crash Pad the Council in fact continued to apply its s. 20 duty and K remained a looked after child since - (a) In fact the Council took a central role in managing the ending of the placement and the move back to the uncle’s flat consistently with continuing to discharge a duty under s. 20 (see