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

Fecha: 18-Sep-2025

Introduction

Introduction

On 26 September 2022 the respondent [“Barnet”] accepted that it owed the appellant a prevention duty pursuant to section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 [“the Act”]. On 17 March 2023 Barnet offered the appellant a two-bedroom flat at 124 Kenilworth Road in Edgware [“the Property”], which it considered suitable for her needs. The appellant accepted that offer but requested that the Respondent review the suitability of the Property pursuant to section 202 of the Act. On 4 August 2023, Barnet gave its decision on the requested review [“the Review decision”], which was that the Property was suitable.

The appellant brought an appeal to the Central London County Court pursuant to section 204 of the Act challenging the Review decision. That appeal came before HHJ Hellman [“the Judge”] on 30 April 2024 and led to a judgment dated 29 July 2024 [“the Judgment”] and an order dismissing the appellant’s appeal, dated 17 October 2024.

The appellant now brings a second appeal to this court advancing two grounds, namely:

Ground 1 is that “the Judge erred in law in finding that, where a local housing authority fails to discharge the duty to assess an applicant’s housing needs pursuant to section 189A(2) of the Act, such breach does not invalidate a purported discharge of duty through offering accommodation because of their assessment of suitability. In error the Judge concluded [that Barnet’s] review of the property’s suitability on review superseded the assessment duty”;

ii)

Ground 2 is that “further or in the alternative, the Judge erred [in] concluding [that] the personal housing plan prepared in the absence of any discharge of the assessment duty, lack of reasoning and in the absence of any review, was immaterial since the reviewing officer could find the property was suitable”.

As will appear, Ground 1 does not accurately reflect the issues that arise in this case. I would dismiss the appeal on both grounds for reasons that I shall explain. First, and although the appeal is primarily concerned with questions of principle, it is necessary to outline some of the facts in rather greater detail. The summary is taken largely from the Judgment.