Facts: GS was a Swiss national of Afghan origin who suffered from a number of fairly severe physical and mental health problems and had become homeless and without the means to support herself but unable to bring herself to return to Switzerland. She was excluded from all forms of mainstream benefits apart from Personal Independence Payments, which she received.

Judgment: Mr Peter Marquand sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge held that, on the particular facts, it had been lawful for Camden to conclude that GS had not required ‘care and support’ for the purposes of the Care Act 2014 and that a need simply for accommodation did not amount to a need for ‘care and support’ (applying R (SG) v Haringey LBC [2015] EWHC 2579 (Admin), (2015) 18 CCLR 444). However, the Judge went on to hold that section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 empowered Camden to provide GS with accommodation and that it was, on the facts, required to do so to avoid a breach of her rights under the ECHR resulting from her homelessness and lack of sufficient means to support herself. In particular, the Judge distinguished R (MK) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2003] EWHC 3486 (Admin), on the basis that because the Care Act 2014 post-dated the Localism Act 2011, the very broad power in section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 was not excluded because the Care Act 2014 did not include a ‘post commencement limitation’, as defined in section 2(2) and (4) of the Localism Act 2011, that is, ‘a prohibition, restriction or other limitation expressly imposed by a statutory provision’ that is ‘expressed to apply – (i) to the general power, (ii) to all of the authority’s powers, or (iii) to all of the authority’s powers but with exceptions that do not include the general power’.