Claimant applies to Supreme Court in dispute over findings of suitability of offered accommodation in absence of lawful housing needs assessment

In June this  year the Court of Appeal found that Parliament could not have intended that an otherwise lawful offer of accommodation by a local authority could be invalidated for lack of an assessment under section 189A(1) of the Housing Act 1996.

Lord Justice Lewison said section 189A provided that a local authority must make an assessment of the applicant's case if it is satisfied they are homeless or threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance.

Applicant Thomas Norton complained the accommodation he was offered was unsuitable and asked for a review of Haringey's decision.

The reviewing officer rejected his complaints and Mr Norton's solicitors said no lawful decision on the suitability of the accommodation could be made in the absence of a lawful housing needs section 189A assessment.

Mr Norton then appealed to the county court, but HHJ Saggerson dismissed his argument that a lawful assessment under section 189A and a lawful personal housing plan were pre-conditions of a valid suitability decision.

HHJ Saggerson said section 189A did not impose any obligations on a reviewing officer - although it could have done - and did not provide that an assessment of suitability is unlawful in the absence of a section 189A assessment.

He said the acid test was whether the reviewing officer had sufficient comprehensive information on which to make a determination.

Mr Norton then appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld HHJ Saggerson’s decision. 

Lord Justice Lewison said Mr Norton “has lost nothing of value” having received the decision on suitability to which he was entitled and which contained no legal flaw.

“In my judgment the consequences of holding that compliance with the duty under section 189A is a condition precedent are stark; and unlikely to reflect Parliament's intention,” Lewison LJ said.

The application for permission to appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court last month.

See also: Imperative requirements in homelessness: nuts and bolts on a bumpy roadmap to suitable accommodation - Lindsay Johnson analyses the Court of Appeal’s ruling.