CA-2024-002169 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1174

Barnet submits that (as found by the Judge) it did assess the appellant’s housing needs, albeit that the assessment is not to be found in a single document. Subject only to the deficiency in the original reasons for the finding of suitability, which was remedied by the Review decision, Barnet submits that it substantially complied with its obligations under section 189A and continued to keep its assessment under suitable review even if there was no meeting to discuss the assessment on 21 October 2022. Having established the system of review pursuant to requests under section 202 of the Act, it cannot have been Parliament’s intention that an otherwise satisfactory review decision is invalidated by any and every prior deficiency in an authority’s section 189A assessment. Rather, a proper appreciation of the consequences of a deficiency should take as its starting point that the Act specifically contemplates that errors can be remedied by a review: this is implicit in regulation 7(2) of the Homelessness (Review Procedure) Regulations 2018, and see [26] of Abed. In the present appeal, the decision under review is the Review decision, which is not substantively challenged. It cannot have been Parliament’s intention that such a review decision is invalidated on the facts of the present case. The purpose of the section 189A duty is to ensure that advice and assistance given to an applicant is tailored to an applicant’s needs and to help them to find accommodation that is suitable for them. That is what happened in the present case.

In support of these submissions, Barnet draws attention to the fact that section 202 of the Act does not provide a right of review of a section 189A assessment or a PHP. Barnet submits that the proper route for challenging the validity of either or both would be by judicial review proceedings. Where, however, that is not done, the structure created by Parliament is for challenges to be to specific decisions of the types identified in section 202 of the Act. That provides a structured and proportionate framework of remedies which presupposes that decisions made after properly applying the review process will be valid, with the further protection of the right of appeal to the County Court on a point of law arising from the decision.

Barnet submits that there was a continuing process that gave substantial consideration to the appellant’s housing needs and to the other features mandated by section 189A(2); and it submits (correctly) that the appellant has not identified any need that went unassessed. Ultimately, Barnet relies upon the fact that suitable accommodation that met the appellant’s needs was identified by Barnet, which was offered to and accepted by the appellant.