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

The appellant approached Barnet in July 2022 because she had been issued a notice seeking possession of the property in which she was then living with her adult son. The case was assigned to a tenancy sustainment officer to explore ways to prevent the loss of accommodation. On 12 September 2022 the appellant and her son completed medical self-assessment forms in which each outlined their significant health issues and consequential difficulties. On the same day they each completed affordability assessment forms.

On 21 September 2022, a housing worker employed by Barnet conducted a telephone interview about the appellant and her son’s circumstances and needs, the details of which were recorded by Barnet in its “Jigsaw notes”. The officer recorded details of the appellant’s reason for making a homelessness approach. Their present accommodation (a two-bedroom first floor flat with access via stairs and a lift), special educational needs for her son, the appellant’s diagnosed conditions, the location of her appointments and her son’s medical and disability information were also recorded. The notes recorded that the appellant had a support network where they currently lived. The following day, the appellant and her son were provided with a copy of that record of interview.

In the light of that interview, Barnet prepared a document that described itself as a personal housing plan [“PHP”]. It recorded that the appellant had attended on Barnet and that “a personal assessment of your current housing circumstances was undertaken” by the housing worker which took into account the circumstances causing her homelessness, the housing needs of the appellant and her household, the type of accommodation her household requires, and any support needs that she and her household needed in order to secure and retain accommodation. It recorded the appellant’s wish to have assistance with long term temporary accommodation; and it set out various action types with target dates to be achieved. It also recorded information that had been provided, such as the self-assessment medical and special needs forms and supporting medical information from the appellant’s GP or consultant. It stated that it was to be reviewed by Barnet and the appellant at 9.15 am on 21 October 2022.

On 26 September 2022, both the appellant and her son signed post-interview declaration forms, as had been requested by Barnet. On the same day the housing worker contacted Barnet’s Housing Medical Team and asked them to assess for vulnerability, future housing and banding recommendations.

Also on 26 September 2022, Barnet wrote to the appellant accepting a duty pursuant to section 195(2) of the Act to help prevent her from becoming homeless. It referred to her PHP being either attached or to be sent shortly, and said that it contained Barnet’s assessment of her housing circumstances, housing need and any support needs. The letter informed the appellant of her right to request a review pursuant to section 202(1)(bc)(i) of any decision of the authority as to the steps the authority were to take. No review was requested.

On 13 October 2022, Barnet’s Housing Medical Team forwarded to the housing worker a response to her request for a medical assessment. The response was compiled by a doctor and was in the following terms:

“Housing needs

First floor max. or lifted

Shower with seat

Nil else specific

…

Given [the son’s disability] I’d consider him vulnerable if homeless.

I make no other housing recommendation.”

This recommendation was added to the Jigsaw notes on 4 December 2022 and was repeated in a further entry in the notes on 17 March 2023.

Meanwhile, on 28 October 2022 the appellant was assessed by Barnet as falling into Band 3 under its allocation scheme. However, the Barnet’s officer recommended that she be treated as falling into Band 2 (the second highest priority band) because of advice from Barnet’s medical team. Accordingly, on 5 December 2022, Barnet sent a “banding” letter to the appellant setting out that she had been placed into band 2 as from 28 October 2022 and that Barnet would now start looking for suitable properties for her. The letter stated that a property would be suitable for her if it met criteria including (a) no more than two bedrooms and (b) compliance with the medical recommendations that the accommodation should be first floor maximum or lifted and a shower with a seat. She was asked to contact Barnet if she did not agree with these criteria.

The appellant was unhappy with the banding allocation and raised this with Barnet, complaining that her existing flat was uninhabitable. On 6 January 2023 Barnet wrote, having completed its enquiries into her application. It rejected the appellant’s concerns and concluded that there should be no change in the appellant’s banding for reasons set out in its letter.

On 6 February 2023 Barnet offered the appellant housing at an address in Avondale Avenue, London N12. After viewing the accommodation with her Social Prescribing Link Worker the appellant said that she did not think it suitable. Having discussed it internally, on 13 February 2023 Barnet accepted and acted on the advice of the Social Prescribing Link Worker that the accommodation was unsuitable and withdrew the offer for that accommodation.

By a letter dated 17 March 2023, Barnet then offered the Property to the appellant by a letter that described itself as a final Part 6 Offer of suitable accommodation. In what was plainly an implicit reference to section 195(5) and (8) of the Act, the letter said that acceptance of the offer would end the housing duty that Barnet owed to the appellant. The letter described the Property as a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor and said that a level access shower would be installed to meet the appellant’s medical needs. The letter stated that Barnet considered the Property to be suitable and reasonable for her, and therefore reasonable for her to accept.

The appellant accepted Barnet’s offer and moved in when the Property was ready for occupation. However, as she was entitled to do, she requested Barnet to carry out a review of the suitability of the Property. Barnet acknowledged that request for a review of the Property’s suitability by a letter dated 24 March 2023, which informed her of her opportunity to submit further representations with regard to the review. The appellant took advantage of that opportunity by a letter from her solicitors on 21 April 2023 which stated that the Property was not suitable for two reasons. First, it was too far from the appellant’s and her son’s support network. The appellant currently lived in Hendon close to Finchley. Her GP, social prescriber, close friend, community and church were all located on the other side of Barnet. It was not reasonable to expect the appellant, who suffered from several physical and mental health conditions, to travel to and from her support network by public transport. Second, the appellant’s son suffered from a hearing impairment which caused him to suffer from tinnitus, dizziness and migraines. The Property was located off a busy motorway. This was not suitable for his medical conditions as exposure to loud noise exacerbated his tinnitus and dizziness. Furthermore, he required regular support from his network to ensure his mental and physical wellbeing.

The solicitor’s letter included a number of supporting letters from friends and family regarding the suitability or otherwise of the location of the Property. In chronological order, the letters were a supporting letter from the Jewish Deaf Association; a supporting letter from the appellant’s close friend, Ms Noushin Tejad; a supporting letter from the North London Iranian Church; a letter from the appellant’s social prescriber; and a supporting letter from the appellant’s GP.

On 25 May 2023 the housing officer who had been primarily dealing with the appellant and her housing needs wrote to the appellant to let her know that the duty under section 195(2) of the Act to help prevent her from becoming homeless had ended because Barnet had been able to help her to find other accommodation, namely the Property. The letter said that the appellant had a reasonable prospect of having the suitable accommodation provided by the Property for at least 12 months and that Barnet’s duty under section 195(2) had come to an end because (a) the appellant had suitable accommodation available for her occupation, and (b) there was a reasonable prospect of having suitable accommodation available for occupation for at least 6 months. The letter drew the appellant’s attention to the possibility of asking for a review of the current decision (i.e. that Barnet’s section 195(2) duty had come to an end) if she thought the accommodation secured or offered wasn’t suitable for her. The appellant has not at any stage requested a review of or challenged the decision that Barnet’s section 195(2) duty had come to an end.

On 14 June 2023, Barnet wrote to the appellant regarding her request for a review of suitability of the offer of accommodation made by the Respondent. The letter stated that the reviewing officer was minded to make a decision upholding the offer of the Property. The letter stated that the reviewing officer was satisfied that there was no irregularity in the original decision or the manner in which it was made, that the Property was suitable, and that the decision that the section 195(2) duty had ended was safe.

On 28 June 2023 the appellant’s solicitors made further written representations and provided further evidence in response to Barnet’s “minded to” letter. The solicitors also sent further representations on 11 July 2023.

On 4 August 2023 Barnet issued the Review decision which is under appeal in these proceedings. It is detailed and thorough, running to 90 paragraphs and 11 pages, and it addresses the suitability of the Property and the appellant’s challenges to suitability in considerable detail taking into account all of the information that had been made available to the reviewing officer by the appellant and from other sources. It is not necessary to provide further details about the contents of the letter because there is no substantive criticism of the Review decision, its terms, reasons or conclusions, including the conclusion that the Property was suitable for the appellant’s housing needs. What is said is that the Review decision is invalidated and rendered unlawful by Barnet’s alleged failure at an earlier stage to carry out an assessment of the appellant’s housing needs as required by section 189A of the Act.