21.4PSIC is defined very widely, at section 115(9) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as follows:

21.6The second point is that, in any event, a duty could not arise by virtue of section 18 of the Care Act 2014 unless the applicant satisfied the universally applicable restriction in regulation 2 of the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 20151SI No 313.which, in short, provide that needs will only meet the eligibility criteria if they ‘arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness’ and ‘as a consequence there is, or is likely to be, a significant impact on the adult’s well-being’ (reg 2(1)). It is hard to see how an eligible need ever could arise as a result of destitution. If so, the main purpose of section 21 of the Care Act 2014 must be to prevent a power arising under section 19, or a duty to take preventative steps, under section 2.

21.7The third point is that, in any event, the Supreme Court acted under the previous regime to limit the responsibility of local authorities to provide accommodation as an adult social care service. In R (SL) v Westminster CC,2[2013] UKSC 27, (2013) 16 CCLR 161.the Supreme Court held that a person only became entitled to residential accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (which imposed a duty to provide residential accommodation ‘for persons aged eighteen or over who by reason of age, illness, disability or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them’) where the person in question had a need for the sort of care that was normally provided in a home (whether ordinary or specialised) or that would be effectively useless if the applicant had no home. The initial judicial indication is that the same approach applies under the Care Act 2014, in the sense that a local authority may not provide ‘accommodation’ under section 8 of the Care Act 2014 unless the applicant needs the sort of care that is normally provided in a home (whether ordinary or specialised) or that would be effectively useless if he or she had no home: R (SG) v Haringey LBC:3[2015] EWHC 2579 (Admin), (2015) 18 CCLR 444.see further above, at chapter 20 on housing provision under the Care Act 2014 at paras 20.3 and 20.12.

21.8The fourth point is that a function of section 21 of the Care Act 2014 is to provide a sorting mechanism for distinguishing between PSIC who might (potentially) be accommodated and supported by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 4 or Part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (eg because they are asylum-seekers or failed asylum-seekers) and PSIC who might (potentially be accommodated and supported by local authorities under the Care Act 2014. However, section 21 of the Care Act 2014 provides only one part of the sorting mechanism, the whole of which works as follows:

21.10In some types of case, of course, there is no potential overlap and an adult who is a PSIC and also destitute will need to try to secure accommodation and support from a local authority because the Secretary of State for the Home Department has no express statutory power to provide them with support, primarily:

21.13After they turn 18, they will in general continue to qualify for local authority support under the ‘children leaving care machinery’, up to the age of 2112R (SO) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 1101, (2010) 13 CCLR 591.– longer, if they continue to supported by the local authority to pursue a course of education or training.

21.14Children living with their families (seeking asylum or LTR under the ECHR) will have their general accommodation and welfare needs met by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by virtue of section 122 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 – but the local authority will meet any special needs that they may have, under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.13R (Ouji) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1839 (Admin).