My apologies! I’m still learning.
I was wondering if someone could help me with this.
If P was born in area A, was living there prior to being homeless. Last registered under GP practice in the area and known to MH services. He subsequently left area A to area B. He became homeless in area B. Not known to services. Later seen by Police Officers, they detained under s136. P was subsequently assessed, detained under s2 and later s3 in area B. He’s currently under s3. He’s thought to be a vulnerable adult. Please who’s responsible for his aftercare?
Just trying to clarify the facts as explained. Looks like his last fixed address was in area A. If he had a fixed address in area B, even for a limited time, I think the picture becomes clearer, that area B would be the responsible aftercare authority.
Assuming he had no fixed address in area B, I think further exploration of his living arrangements when he became homeless would be required. A homeless person can establish ordinary residence in an area without having a fixed address. The Shah case clarifies that it depends on the person choosing a place to live for settled purposes, for short or long duration. “Settled purposes” is a moot point here, but homeless people can be “settled” on Hampstead Heath in a tent, or outside University College Hospital’s warm air fans on the pavement, which would potentially establish an ordinary residence.
If the person had lost or given up their previous accommodation in area A and had now in effect “moved to” area B, this would I believe add weight to the argument that they were ordinarily resident in area B.
The reality is, a case like this will probably finish up as a bunfight between the local authority legal teams.
Yep, I would agree. The Worcestershire judgement is all about establishing the authority of ordinary residence following a re-detention, and whether the original authority remains responsible, or the new authority if the person has moved accommodation in the intervening period.
The principle is the same, in that the responsible authority is the one where the person was ordinarily resident immediately prior to the most recent qualifying detention (in this case s3).
However with the example you have given, the person was not previously known to services, and therefore hasn’t had a previous qualifying detention, so there is no debate about whether area A “retained” responsibility.