Matthew Howarth in BLZ (No.2), High Court: Landmark Ruling on Local Authority Duties Towards Foreign National Offenders

In the recent case of BLZ v Leeds City Council [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin) (BLZ No.2),
the Fordham J delivered a significant judgment clarifying the responsibilities of local
authorities towards foreign national offenders (FNOs) in Home Office Bail
Accommodation (HOBA). Matthew Howarth (led by Jack Holborn of 39 Essex
Chambers) acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD).

This ten day judicial review examined the interplay between local authority obligations
under the Care Act 2014 and the provision of HOBA under Schedule 10 §9 of the
Immigration Act 2016. The case centred on two key questions: (1) when a local authority
is legally required to provide accommodation to meet care and support needs, and (2)
whether HOBA should be treated as “residual” and “legally irrelevant” by local
authorities in their decision-making processes.

The case arose from the transfer of the claimant, an FNO, from HOBA in Huddersfield to
HOBA in Leeds on September 20, 2023. This transfer triggered a series of events that
ultimately led to this landmark ruling. The judgment in BLZ v Leeds City Council is
paired with a related decision, BLZ No.1 [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin), which addressed
the claimant’s challenge against the SSHD.

The complexity of this case stems from the intersection of multiple legal frameworks. On
one hand, the Care Act 2014 and its associated regulations govern local authority
provision of care and support. On the other, the Immigration Act 2016 and the
Immigration Bail Interim Guidance regulate HOBA. This intersection created a legal grey
area regarding the responsibilities of local authorities towards FNOs in HOBA who may
have care and support needs.

A key issue in the case was whether HOBA should be considered “residual” and “legally
irrelevant” in the same way that asylum support accommodation has been treated in
previous cases. This question was crucial in determining the extent of a local authority’s
duty to provide accommodation under the Care Act 2014.

The court’s analysis delved into the statutory language of Schedule 10 §9 of the
Immigration Act 2016, comparing it to the provisions governing asylum support
accommodation. Despite some differences in the legislative frameworks, the court
ultimately concluded that HOBA should indeed be treated as “residual” and “legally
irrelevant” by local authorities when assessing their duties under the Care Act 2014.

This determination has significant implications for both local authorities and the Home
Office. It clarifies that when a local authority is assessing whether it has a duty to
provide accommodation to meet care and support needs, it must disregard the
existence of HOBA. This approach aligns the treatment of HOBA with that of asylum
support accommodation in the context of local authority duties.

The court also provided important guidance on when care and support needs require a
local authority to provide accommodation under the Care Act 2014. It established that
accommodation must be necessary for the effective delivery of care and support to meet
eligible needs, and the individual must not have access to any other legally relevant
accommodation where those needs can be met.

Counsel for the SSHD argued in support of treating HOBA as “residual” and “legally
irrelevant.” This position was ultimately accepted by the court, aligning with the
government’s view on the delineation of responsibilities between local authorities and
the Home Office.

The outcome of this case represents a significant clarification of the law in this complex
area. It provides much-needed guidance to local authorities on their duties towards
FNOs in HOBA who may have care and support needs. The ruling also reinforces the
principle that HOBA is intended as a measure of last resort, similar to asylum support
accommodation.

This judgment will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for future cases involving
FNOs, local authorities, and the Home Office. It sets the leading precedent for how the
intersection of immigration law and social care law should be navigated, ensuring a
clearer division of responsibilities between different governmental bodies.

As a barrister specialising in this intricate area of law, Matthew Howarth contributed to
this landmark ruling. The case of BLZ v Leeds City Council [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin)
will serve as a crucial reference point for practitioners, policymakers, and judges
grappling with similar issues in the future.