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

The appellant’s submissions are founded on the contention that Barnet carried out no section 189A assessment of the appellant’s case. On that basis it is contended that it was at all material times unable to discharge its prevention duty under section 195(2). In support of that contention the appellant submits that the obligation to carry out a section 189A assessment logically precedes any possible decision on whether a duty is owed and, if it is, how that duty is to be discharged. The assessment must comply with all the requirements of section 189A(2). After the assessment has been made, the applicant must be notified of the authority’s assessment in writing and the authority must try to agree with the applicant what steps should be taken: see sections 189A(3) and (4). Although the assessment does not have to deal with and set out every need that an applicant might possibly have, it should set out the “key needs”, sometimes described as those that would provide the “nuts and bolts” for any offer of accommodation. Until the authority decides that it owes an applicant no duty under Part 7 of the Act, the assessment must be kept under review: see section 189A(9). A failure to carry out any (or any compliant) assessment may properly form the basis for judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash a purported assessment.

The appellant accepts (and asserts) that a local housing authority may discharge their housing functions under Part 7 of the Act by securing that suitable accommodation provided by them is available: see section 206(1) of the Act. That applies equally to an authority attempting to discharge its prevention duty under section 195(2) by securing that accommodation is available. However, it remains the appellant’s case that a failure properly to discharge the section 189A(2) obligation has the effect that an authority is not able lawfully to discharge the prevention duty. In oral submissions Mr Colville for the appellant accepted and asserted that the logical conclusion of his argument would be that, where an assessment was either absent or deficient, the provision of suitable accommodation could not amount to a lawful discharge of the authority’s prevention duty. In his words, “a failure to carry out an adequate housing needs assessment would invalidate a finding of suitability” whether or not the issue of suitability was raised as an issue for review and even if a comprehensive section 202 review concluded for unimpeachable reasons after considering all available evidence that the accommodation was in fact suitable.