Hughes, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council

Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 addresses ordinary housing needs. It does not authorise a local authority to provide accommodation specially adapted to a person’s serious disability. Where such accommodation is required, the relevant duty may arise under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Once that duty is established, it must be fulfilled within a reasonable time and may be enforced by judicial review.

Under section 29 of the 1948 Act and section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, eligible assessed needs must be met. Available resources may inform eligibility criteria but cannot justify failing to meet needs already assessed as eligible. Damages for an infringement of article 8 are discretionary and require just satisfaction; statutory relief may make damages unnecessary.

The claimant, an adult with severe mental and physical disabilities, lived with his mother in accommodation accepted by Liverpool City Council to be unsuitable for his needs. His mother sought judicial review of the council’s failure to secure suitable accommodation and adequate welfare services.

The claim concerned duties under Part 3 of the National Assistance Act 1948, the Housing Act 1996, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The claimant also sought damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for alleged interference with article 8 rights.

The central issues were whether Part 7 of the Housing Act displaced the section 21 duty, whether assessed welfare needs had been met, and whether damages were necessary to afford just satisfaction.

1. Accommodation. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 addresses ordinary housing needs. Section 189(1), including its reference to vulnerability caused by disability, identifies priority need but does not authorise the provision of accommodation specially adapted to the demands of a person’s disability. Accommodation with wheelchair access, level access, suitable washing facilities or other necessary adaptations may therefore fall within section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
2. The claimant required specially adapted accommodation. Liverpool had accepted that his existing home was unsuitable and had not discharged its section 21 duty by the date of judgment. The court declared that Liverpool was in breach. No further housing order was made immediately, but liberty to apply was granted if the proposed accommodation proved unsuitable.
3. Welfare services. Section 29 of the 1948 Act, the ministerial directions, section 2 of the 1970 Act and the Secretary of State’s guidance required eligible assessed needs to be met. Resources were relevant when setting eligibility criteria, but not after an individual need had been assessed as eligible. Liverpool’s assessment was treated as a whole, but the absence of weekend respite care and the claimant’s mother’s deteriorating capacity required prompt action and reassessment under paragraph 60 of Local Authority Circular 13 of 2002.
4. Liverpool was ordered to provide weekend respite care and reassess the claimant’s welfare needs within 28 days. The claimant’s statutory judicial review claim therefore succeeded to that extent.
5. Human rights claim. The court accepted, without deciding, that article 8 might impose a positive duty to promote private and family life. On the evidence, Liverpool’s shortcomings had not infringed the claimant’s article 8 rights. In any event, the high threshold identified in R (Anufrijeva) v Southwark LBC [2004] QB 1124 was not crossed, and damages were not necessary for just satisfaction. The damages claim failed.
6. The claimant’s costs were ordered to be paid by Liverpool, subject to detailed assessment. Permission to appeal on the accommodation issue was refused.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment records no earlier decision in the same proceedings.