Bibi, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

Accommodation discharges a local housing authority’s homelessness duty only if it is suitable for the applicant and relevant household members. Suitability is a fact-sensitive balancing exercise. Disability and the presence of internal stairs may be highly relevant, but an internal assessment form or housing-policy criterion is not necessarily conclusive. The court must consider the evidence as a whole, including the household’s actual experience of the accommodation and its suitability for their needs.

The claimant had been accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need under Housing Act 1985, section 65(2). The authority provided temporary accommodation at 34 Jade Close and later asserted that this had discharged its statutory duty. Earlier proceedings had resulted in findings concerning the claimant’s legitimate expectation of suitable accommodation with secure tenure, but had not determined whether 34 Jade Close was suitable or whether it discharged the section 65(2) duty.

The claimant sought a declaration that the duty continued. The central issue was whether the maisonette, which contained internal stairs and was occupied by the claimant’s disabled daughter, was suitable accommodation within section 65(2) and section 69.

1. The claim was dismissed. The authority was entitled to conclude that the accommodation at 34 Jade Close had discharged its duty under section 65(2) of the Housing Act 1985.
2. Under sections 65(2) and 69, the essential question is whether a reasonable housing authority, properly directing itself, could conclude that the accommodation offered was suitable for the applicant and those to whom the duty was owed. The authority must consider the circumstances of the relevant household members, together with the statutory matters concerning overcrowding and houses in multiple occupation. The approach in R v London Borough of Brent ex parte Omar 23 HLR 446 was applied.
3. Suitability involves a balancing exercise. The daughter’s disability and her difficulty using stairs made the internal staircase a highly relevant consideration. They did not, however, make the accommodation automatically unsuitable. The authority’s assessment forms and records were means of collating relevant information, not definitive criteria which had to be satisfied in every case.
4. The evidence as a whole supported suitability. The claimant and her family occupied the property for five years, expressed satisfaction with it in interviews, and wished to remain there. The claimant’s counsel had also described it as satisfactory accommodation. Those matters outweighed the fact that the property contained a short flight of stairs, notwithstanding earlier records indicating that accommodation without internal stairs was essential.
5. The authority was therefore entitled to proceed on the basis that its duty had been discharged. No declaration was made. As to costs, there was no order up to 21 February 2002; thereafter the claimant was ordered to pay the authority’s costs, with determination of her liability postponed pending further application.

The judgment records earlier proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal concerning the claimant’s legitimate expectation of suitable accommodation with secure tenure. Those proceedings did not determine whether 34 Jade Close had discharged the statutory duty. The present claim was determined at first instance by the Administrative Court.