Bauer-Czarnomski, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Ealing

In applying a housing-allocation policy, “housing conditions” include the effects of living with household members whose disabilities create the relevant hardship. They are not confined to the physical condition or size of the accommodation.

Medical advisers may report on the effect of accommodation on an applicant’s health, but deciding the applicant’s priority band is a matter for the local authority. Reliance on medical opinions addressing that allocation decision, rather than the medical evidence, is irrational where it takes account of an immaterial consideration.

The claimant lived with and cared for his elderly parents, both of whom had significant mental or physical problems. He challenged the defendant local authority’s decision to place him in Band D under its Locata housing-allocation scheme, despite medical evidence that his living circumstances had a major adverse effect on his health.

The central issues were whether the relevant housing conditions included the effect of his parents’ conduct and disabilities, whether the authority’s medical advisers had exceeded their proper role, and whether the Band D decision was lawful.

1. The claim succeeded. The decision placing the claimant in Band D was quashed, and the authority was required to reconsider his priority under the allocation policy.
2. The phrase “current housing conditions” was not limited to the physical features of the house. It included the conditions created by the conduct and disabilities of people living there. The claimant’s continual caring responsibilities, disturbed sleep and inability to obtain adequate rest were capable of constituting an adverse effect on his medical condition.
3. The claimant’s treating doctor had reported a major adverse effect on his health. The authority’s medical advisers accepted that an adverse health effect existed but went on to express views about whether the claimant needed rehousing and which priority band was appropriate. Those allocation judgments were matters for the authority, not for the doctors.
4. It was irrational for the authority to rely on the advisers’ view that the house was physically adequate and contained a separate bedroom. That approach treated physical accommodation as conclusive and ignored the effect of the claimant’s parents’ disabilities. The error was irrational in the sense identified by Lord Diplock in the CCSU case, namely reliance on an immaterial consideration, and was also perverse on the medical evidence.
5. The authority had to obtain up-to-date medical evidence and reconsider the claimant’s position. Unless his circumstances had substantially improved, it appeared that he should be placed at least in Band C, although the court could not direct that Band B was required. The claimant was awarded reasonable litigant-in-person costs, subject to assessment if not agreed.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment does not state any earlier appellate decision.