Case No. EWHC-185-(Admin)

124.1The Claimant had chosen his private rental whilst he was a wheelchair user. 124.2The Claimant had lived at his private rental flat for 4 years as a wheelchair user.124.3The Claimant had not previously asserted that he was homeless.124.4The Claimant had been assisted, on his own assertions, by 24 hour care provided for the last four years at the flat.124.5The Claimant had an adapted toilet and other equipment in the flat (albeit he could not use the larger hoist).124.6The Claimant had historically been provided with State funding for 35 hours of day care per week (average 5 hours per day). 124.7The Defendants’ own medical assessor had assessed the Claimant in mid 2020 after an examination and after seeing the Claimant’s GP records. The assessor determined that the Claimant needed only a one bedroom flat and no night care and was able to walk and was likely going to progress to better mobility. 124.8The Claimant had chosen not to provide any medical letters or notes in support of the nature or extent of his asserted current multiple disabilities or of any asserted diagnosis or of any prognosis of any worsening of his conditions in support of his homelessness application despite having legal representation.124.9The Defendants’ long standing Adult Social Care approach on file had been that the Claimant did not need 24 hour care (night care). 124.10The Claimant failed for 14 days to return the forms which he was sent on 12.8.2022 and when he did so he failed to provide details of his NHS number, GP or any treating consultants.125.In my judgment S.188(1) is not a trump card route to overturn or bypass unchallenged decisions made by Social Services or housing authorities which have been taken in previous years after proper investigation and deliberation and in particular which are based on medical opinion. In my judgment there was no immediate duty imposed on the Defendants on 10th or 12th August 2022 after the unevidenced assertions by the Claimant of homelessness caused by disabilities more extensive and severe than the Defendants had accepted previously and the Claimant’s repeated demand for a larger property. 126.I consider that the Housing Act 1996 permits housing authorities to seek to understand if there is any reason to believe that there is any real potential substance in the demands and assertions made when such are in conflict with their historic files and previous decisions. Whilst the clarifications the Defendants may seek cannot be anything like as long or detailed as the full investigation (the statutory enquiries) I do not accept that a housing authority has no power to seek clarification where assertions founding a “homeless at home” application based on medical conditions contradict the authority’s previous evidence and decisions on those same conditions.127.It would have been different if the Claimant had produced a letter from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon or his GP saying, for instance, that his discectomy operation had gone poorly and his back condition was deteriorating and he had become wheelchair bound in the last few weeks because his spinal cord was compromised. 128.The rule against allowing non statutory enquiries, which I accept applies in its full force, does not in my judgment turn the Defendants into a post box or a tick box authority. It all depends on the circumstances. The Defendants are required to exercise judgment about the necessary “reason to believe”. Assertion may provide a potential reason but it must still be a judgment call. Gaining the reason to believe entails three steps in my judgment: (1) consideration of the assertions in the application and whether there is evidence provided to support them, (2) consideration of the contents of the housing authority’s historic file (and the Social Services file if necessary) and then if there is good or strong reason not to believe the decisions in the file in the Defendants’ possession: (3) clarification of the medical matters which can be clarified quickly with the applicant or third parties. All of this of course depends on the context of the application. If the applicant is street homeless and has priority need the timescale is probably shortened to hours or a day. If the applicant is, like the Claimant was, living in a private rental flat, and had been for four years, a flat which he himself chose, with 24 hour care support and has equipment to assist provided by the local authority and medical care provided by neurologists, pain management teams, physiotherapists and cardiologists, the timescale for clarification will probably be somewhat longer. If the applicant fails to provide any current medical evidence in support, refuses to clarify and blocks requests reasonably made for clarification, the timescale may extend or the engagement of the duty may reasonably be rejected.129.In the event the Claimant failed to provide any medical notes or evidence to support his application. He also failed or refused to complete the clear questions in the medical assessment form which he was sent on 12.8.2022. He returned the form 14 days after being asked for the information, so on 26.8.2022 and he refused to disclose his medical evidence and records with or on the forms.130.What then is the position with an applicant who fails to provide obviously necessary supporting evidence and fails to assist the housing authority by answering reasonable clarification requests? No case law authority was cited to me on this issue. 131.If the duty to accept is imposed on the housing authority immediately upon the application. If the duty is imposed just on mere assertion and there is no scope for clarification, that would be unworkable. It would permit a two legged man to assert he had one leg and seek priority housing and the authority would not be able to clarify the existence of the disability. If the authority were then sent a photo the next day of the applicant swimming in Hyde Park lake with two healthy legs what could they do? Disengage or terminate the duty which they had already been required to accept? 132.I do not consider that the housing authority has to provide interim housing despite considering that there is no real reason to believe that the application is genuine. For instance if it is based on a fraud. It seems to me that matters here have shades of grey depending on the facts. The decision to engage in my judgment depends on the facts asserted and the need for clarification in certain cases. 133.Thus I consider that after an application is made by a homeless person who has a roof, the housing authority are entitled to clarify the vital points asserted when they conflict with the authority’s previous decisions made after proper previous investigations. The clarification should be sought in a quick and reasonable way and in my judgment the applicant is under a duty to assist them by answering quickly. Then after a short time a decision has to be taken by the authority on whether the S.188(1) duty is engaged.