R W v Sheffield City Council

In an exceptional housing case, the existence of alternative statutory remedies does not necessarily prevent judicial review where a vulnerable claimant is caught between competing local authorities and urgent accommodation needs remain unmet. Suitability of accommodation may include suitability of location and access to effective support. A local authority’s apparently irrational refusal to accept responsibility should not necessarily determine the suitability assessment undertaken by another authority. Where the issues remain unresolved, the court may adjourn the claim and make an interim accommodation order to protect the claimant, avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and promote the fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute.

The claimant was accepted as eligible, homeless, not intentionally homeless and in priority need by Westminster City Council. Westminster referred his application to Sheffield City Council on the basis that he had a local connection there. Sheffield accepted the referral but maintained that its duty could be discharged by offering accommodation in Sheffield.

The claimant had serious learning and mental-health difficulties and was receiving effective support in Westminster. He sought judicial review of Sheffield’s refusal to secure accommodation for him in Westminster. The court also considered the availability of statutory review and county-court appeal procedures, and the relationship between the two councils’ duties. The central issues were whether judicial review should proceed despite alternative remedies and whether accommodation in Sheffield could be suitable in the circumstances.

1. Interim and provisional disposition. The court made no concluded findings. The claim was adjourned, and Sheffield was ordered to continue providing suitable accommodation for the claimant in Westminster until seven days after disposal of the County Court proceedings or further order, with liberty to apply.
2. Alternative remedy. Although housing matters would ordinarily be dealt with through the statutory review and county-court appeal procedures, this was provisionally an exceptional case. The claimant had been caught between two authorities, faced serious vulnerability and homelessness, and had encountered substantial practical obstacles. Judicial review could therefore properly be entertained notwithstanding the alternative remedies.
3. Suitability and local connection. On the evidence then available, the claimant had a local connection with Westminster under section 199 of the Housing Act 1996. His effective support services were in Westminster, and a return to Sheffield appeared highly improbable and potentially harmful. The court was provisionally inclined to accept that suitability of accommodation could include suitability of location and that accommodation in Sheffield might in reality be unsuitable.
4. Responsibility and co-operation. If the provisional conclusions were correct, one or other council had a statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation. The authorities should co-operate to meet the needs of a difficult and vulnerable claimant rather than become engaged in a struggle to avoid responsibility.
5. Case management. The interim order was consistent with the overriding objective in the Civil Procedure Rules. It protected the claimant, avoided duplicated proceedings and expense, and enabled the related disputes to be considered promptly and fairly, potentially before the same County Court judge.

The judgment describes earlier interim orders requiring Sheffield to provide suitable temporary accommodation in Westminster. Permission to proceed with judicial review was granted by Bennett J on 20 January 2005. This court adjourned the claim and continued the interim accommodation order pending disposal of the County Court appeal or further order.