Summary: The claimant, a 51-year-old man with severe physical and mental health conditions, sought judicial review of Kensington and Chelsea’s Housing Officers’ decision (“the Decision”), which had rejected his request for accommodation during the review of an earlier decision that deemed him not homeless under the Housing Act 1996.
It was held that due to the unfairness resulting from insufficient inquiries and reasoned consideration of new information by the Council, the claimant’s case constituted exceptional circumstances. The Decision and subsequent review decision not to provide interim accommodation were deemed unlawful, leading to their being quashed. A mandatory order required the Council to continue providing suitable accommodation to Mr Saint Sepulchre pending the completion of the review of the earlier decision under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996.
The Housing Review and Scrutiny Officer re-evaluated the original decision, considering additional information, including a Care Act assessment and pre-action protocol correspondence, revealing potential health decline.
Mr Saint Sepulchre had held a social housing tenancy in Truro since January, 2016, wher he said he had been assaulted by neighbours, leading to multiple housing applications to move away, with the most recent rejection in 2022. Alleged assaults, including being pulled out of his wheelchair, prompted his return to London and his making homelessness applications there after an acquaintance drove him to London. Concerns about police corruption in Truro and distrust of the local authority surfaced, along with claims of broken agreements and eviction attempts. The Council mentioned a suspended possession order for the Truro address with terms for rent arrears repayment. He highlighted ongoing issues with the local authority, casting soe doubt on the stability of his housing situation.
The Council’s own Care Act assessment in March 2023 revealed a complex psychiatric history, diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and vertigo, and identified risks to mental health. Eligible social care needs were recognised by the Council’s ASC team, and Mr Saint Sepulchre was allocated a social worker for support.
The Council, through a decision under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996, determined that Mr Saint Sepulchre was not homeless, given his accommodation at the Truro address. A review was requested, along with a plea for continued accommodation during the review, citing Mr Saint Sepulchre’s vulnerability and safety concerns at the Truro address. The decision, while acknowledging Mr Saint Sepulchre’s vulnerability, emphasised that his landlord had advised that there were no reports or concerns raised in relation to Mr. Saint Sepulchre’s safety that would lead them to believe that he was unable to reside at the address. It also said his support needs and being linked to a local social worker could not constitute exceptional circumstances as this support could be provided in Cornwall.
Under Part 7 of the 1996 Act, s184 outlined the decision-making process, leading to a review if adverse. Section 188(1) mandated interim accommodation for eligible homeless applicants. The discretionary power under section 188(3) must be exercised considering factors outlined in R v Camden LBC ex parte Mohammed (1998) 30 HLR 315 (Admin), emphasising a balance between fairness and the possibility of a flawed decision. The Homelessness Code of Guidance provides further guidelines, including a three-pronged consideration and a call for a thorough balancing exercise. Additionally, the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) required compliance with the Equality Act 2010, focusing on the protected characteristic of disability.
The grounds and defence in this case revolved around alleged inadequate inquiries, irrationality, failure to consider new information, and breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). The claimant argued that the Decision lacked engagement with his solicitors and did not properly consider new information, such as the Care Act assessment and the claimant’s personal circumstances. The Council contended that the solicitors’ representations were considered in the Review Letter and highlighted the claimant’s own lack of response to contact attempts.
The Council argued that Care Act eligibility did not as a matter of law determine section 188(3) decision-making and pointed to the social worker’s potential support in Cornwall. But further hospital admissions post-dating the Decision were cited by the claimant as evidence of its impact, challenging the adequacy of the Council’s consideration.
The Public Sector Equality Duty was invoked by the claimant, emphasising the Council’s need to “have due regard” to meet the needs of a disabled person. Disputes arose over the Housing Officer’s characterisation of the man’s disability, and the claimant argued for an enhanced duty of inquiry. The Council asserted awareness rather than an enhanced duty, referencing legal precedents.
The extent of reasons was a point of contention, with the claimant arguing for a more comprehensive consideration of their circumstances. The Council referred to legal precedent, asserting that reasons need only address the main issues in the dispute, not every material consideration.
Analysis and decision:
The impact of insufficient or flawed inquiries in this case was central to the Claimant’s contentions. The primary grievance was the failure to communicate results to Mr Saint Sepulchre through his solicitors, a crucial step considering his vulnerability and complex health conditions. Deficient inquiries related to the merits of the case, as acknowledged even by the Council, emphasising the need for a balanced judgment.
The inquiry deficiencies spanned various areas, and the Council’s reliance on the Truro landlord’s information lacked balance, and there was insufficient inquiry into the wheelchair dependency and care assurances in Cornwall.
In the context of the second and third considerations in Mohammed, the Housing Officer’s link between Mr Saint Sepulchre’s collapse and the Decision became a relevant matter affecting the view that he would not suffer harm. The Housing Officer’s reaffirmation of the Decision lacked adjustment to information from the Care Act assessment.
In conclusion, due to the unfairness resulting from insufficient inquiries and poorly reasoned consideration of new information, the judge in effect found that no reasonable authority could have treated the situation as not constituting ‘exceptional circumstances’. The Decision and subsequent review decision not to provide interim accommodation were deemed unlawful, leading to the quashing of these decisions. A mandatory order required the Council to continue providing suitable accommodation to Mr Saint Sepulchre pending the completion of the review of the earlier decision under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996.
Comment:
It is hoped that housing and social care lawyers will see the critical link here between the application as homeless and the relevance of social services professional staff’s proper assessments of those presenting for immediate ASC assessment – for the housing officer’s decision.