Simms v London Borough of Islington

Priority need depends on whether, when homeless, an applicant would be less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person, with a resulting risk of injury or detriment. The assessment is composite and must consider all relevant circumstances, including combinations of drug problems, mental health difficulties, physical conditions and other special reasons. Drug-related vulnerability is not automatic. A local authority must engage with relevant medical evidence, but it determines statutory vulnerability and need not obtain further medical advice on every report. A decision letter must be read as a whole. On the facts, the authority had considered the risk of relapse, the available support and the effect of street homelessness, and was entitled to conclude that the applicant was not vulnerable under the Housing Act 1996.

James Simms, a homeless man with drug addiction, depression, panic attacks and physical health problems, applied to the London Borough of Islington for accommodation as a person in priority need. The authority decided that he was not vulnerable and upheld that decision on review on 19 July 2007. His appeal to the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court was dismissed by His Honour Judge Simpson on 27 November 2007. On second appeal, the central issues were whether the reviewing officer had properly considered the risk of relapse if Mr Simms remained street homeless, the medical evidence, and the effect of homelessness on his psychiatric condition.

Appeal dismissed. Ward LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Moore-Bick and Rimer LJJ agreed.

1. Under section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996, vulnerability requires a composite assessment. The authority must ask whether, if homeless, the applicant would be less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person, so that injury or detriment would result where that ordinary person could cope without harmful effect. The assessment proceeds on the basis that homelessness will occur.
2. The expression other special reason is not confined to physical or mental characteristics. It requires an open, individual assessment and may involve a combination of factors. A recovering drug addict’s risk of relapse if street homeless is therefore a relevant consideration. The authority was nevertheless entitled to conclude, after considering the risk, the applicant’s treatment and support, and all the circumstances, that there was no sufficiently substantial risk of detriment. The conclusion was not perverse and was one the authority was entitled to reach.
3. The reviewing authority had to pay close regard to the medical evidence, but the statutory issue remained for the authority. There was no requirement to refer every report to a medical adviser or obtain a further opinion. That depended on the facts. The circumstances in Shala were materially different; the additional report here did not make it unreasonable to proceed without further advice.
4. Decision letters should be read as a whole and not subjected to pedantic dissection. The letter showed that the reviewing officer had considered the relapse risk, the medical evidence, the absence of a medical examination by the authority’s adviser and the effect of street homelessness on the appellant’s psychiatric condition. No express reference to each matter was required.
5. The court declined to express a general view on the applicability of the obiter observations in Crossley, since the risk of relapse had been considered in this case.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2008] EWCA Civ 1083, the second appeal was dismissed.
• Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court: His Honour Judge Simpson dismissed the appeal on 27 November 2007 and upheld the reviewing officer’s decision.
• London Borough of Islington: The reviewing officer upheld the decision that Mr Simms was not vulnerable and had no priority need on 19 July 2007.