High Court quashes housing needs assessments and suitability decision which saw claimant relocated to different borough

Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, allowed the appeal by claimant UO on all three grounds argued in a judicial review.

UO is a Nigerian national with refugee status in the United Kingdom and is a homeless single mother with three children.

The judge said the issue before him was whether Redbridge lawfully assessed and reviewed UO’s housing needs and provided her with suitable accommodation.

He said the dispute “must be seen in the real-world context of severe housing shortages in London and the south east”.

Although the family had lived in Redbridge and UO works and studies there and the eldest child attends a local school, the family were later moved to Enfield as a housing needs assessment did not conclude it was ‘essential’ for them to live in Redbridge.

UO said that being accommodated in Enfield meant hours of daily travelling during term time which placed an intolerable strain on her and her children.

She said Redbridge’s allocation was unreasonable, “and in public law terms irrational and unlawful”.

Redbridge argued that it has an acute housing shortage, and priority must be given to those whose residence was ‘essential’. It was deemed only ‘highly desirable’ for UO to live in Redbridge.

After a housing needs assessment, the council originally provided UO with a series of hotel rooms, and later with temporary accommodation and she challenged the lawfulness of this in June 2023, and a court quashed the decisions involved.

Redbridge prepared another housing needs assessment in June 2023, which UO again challenged and this led to a revised ‘move on assessment’ in August 2022, which concluded it was not essential for her to live in or near the borough.

In October 2023, Redbridge offered UO accommodation in Enfield, which she accepted even though the eldest child had just started at a secondary school in Redbridge.

In April 2024, Redbridge conducted a requested suitability assessment of the Enfield flat, deeming the accommodation suitable.

This also concluded there was still no essential reason for the family to be in Redbridge.

UO requested a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, and this again found the property suitable no essential reason to reside in Redbridge.

Her grounds of challenge were that Redbridge’s ‘check list & move on assessment’ of August 2023 was unlawful for the purpose of section 189A HA 1996, read with sections 205-210 HA 1996 and section 11(2) CA 2004, and that in the suitability decision of April 2024, the council failed to conduct a lawful review of UO’s housing needs for the purpose of section 189A(9) HA 1996, read with sections 205-210 HA 1996 and section 11(2) CA 2004,.

She argued in her third ground that the suitability decision is unlawful and/or Redbridge was in ongoing breach of its duty to provide her with suitable accommodation under section 193(2) HA 1996, read with sections 205-210 HA 1996 and section 11(2) CA 2004.

Mr Dias said in his judgment on the first ground: “I am satisfied that [Redbridge] did not make its decision in compliance with its duties under section 11(2) CA 2004, para 17.51 of the Code, Article 2(b) of the 2012 Homelessness Order and the defendant's published placement policy.”

He went on to explain: “I am satisfied that [Redbridge] has not holistically assessed the impact of a relocation on the claimant's employment and education in the context of how that may impact her housing needs with the specific demands, that is the ‘particular circumstances’, of being a lone parent bringing up three minor children on her own and the likely increased additional demands resulting from out of borough accommodation. This was a significant misstep.”

The judge cited various errors and said: “The significance of these failures is that no reasonable authority or decision-maker would be in position to properly (that is, lawfully) assess the claimant's housing needs and thus the claimant's priority for accommodation without making these reasonable enquiries and taking these factors into account.

“Critically, the defendant also has not complied with the section 11 CA 2004 duty to properly assess the likely impact of its decision on the welfare of the children and have regard to the promoting and safeguarding of their welfare. All of this is the very essence – the ‘nuts and bolts’…of a lawful decision.”

Having found the August 2023 assessment unlawful, the judge said this “fatally infects” the April 2024 suitability assessment since the errors were largely replicated, including failure to make reasonable enquiries about educational needs in changing school mid-year, disruption to education, and the likely emotional impact of such change on [child] LO in the context of previous instability and trauma”.

He said Redbridge had been wrong to conclude that since none of the children had special needs or were taking examinations there was no point in having any regard to what the headteacher said about access to school.

“This, however, is to elevate the defendant's policy into a rigid rule and to ignore the fact that the references to GCSE's and A levels, and to those with special educational needs, constitute examples of where particular consideration will be given to the needs of children, rather than an exhaustive list,” Mr Dias said.

He said: “Standing back, I judge that the defendant's April 2024 assessment fares no better than its assessment in August 2023.”

The April 2024 assessment's deficiencies included: lack of analysis of the claimant's lone parent status and its demands; failure to engage with the significance of LO's history of trauma, distress and need for well-being therapeutic support and the erroneous misstatement of the policy as whether the child was ‘in the middle’ of examinations;

He said the third ground was “based on the same errors and unlawfulness as the assessments in Ground 1 and Ground 2” and also quashed that.

Mark Smulian