A High Court judge has significantly watered down a landmark ruling that had prevented local authorities from taking asylum support into account when deciding whether to house vulnerable young care leavers – a decision that could have major financial implications for councils.
In a judgment handed down on 31st March 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Jonathan Moffett KC ruled that Kent County Council was entitled, in certain circumstances, to consider whether an asylum-seeking ‘qualifying young person’ was already being or could be provided with accommodation by the Home Office under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The decision partly overturns the judge’s own ruling on a case just months earlier, which had held that asylum support was an ‘irrelevant consideration’ for councils making decisions under section 24A(5) of the Children Act 1989 – a provision allowing local authorities to provide accommodation and financial help to care leavers in ‘exceptional circumstances’.
That earlier ruling had sparked alarm among local authorities already struggling with rising demand and tight budgets. Kent County Council argued that fully implementing AAM would cost it nearly £6.3 million for 142 young people, forcing difficult cuts to other care leaver services.
In the latest case, brought by two young asylum-seekers, CYK and DS, the court heard far more detailed legal arguments – including two key authorities, O v Haringey and R (VC) v Newcastle, which had not been cited in the earlier hearing. Those cases, the judge said, forced him to change course.
The central question turned on regulation 6(4) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, which requires the Home Secretary to consider ‘other support’ available to an asylum-seeker. The judge concluded that this applies only where a local authority is under a legal duty to provide support – or where, in the specific circumstances, it would be required to exercise a discretionary power.
Because section 24A(5) is a power that can only be exercised in ‘exceptional circumstances’, the judge held that it does not automatically give rise to the kind of entitlement that would block the Home Office from providing asylum support. Whether a council can take asylum support into account will now depend on the specific facts of each case.
The ruling is a blow to campaigners who had hoped the AAM decision would force councils to step in more readily. But the judge stressed that councils cannot simply rely on the existence of asylum accommodation to justify refusing help – they must show that it actually meets the young person’s assessed needs.
Following the judgment, Kent County Council agreed to provide DS with accommodation and financial support while carrying out a fresh assessment.
Leave a Reply