Sheridan & Ors v Basildon Borough Council

A housing authority’s duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 is absolute, but suitability is an elastic concept assessed against a minimum Wednesbury standard. Resources and available housing stock are relevant, but cannot justify accommodation falling below that minimum.

A traveller’s genuine cultural aversion to conventional housing requires special consideration and proper enquiries into available caravan sites. It does not, without more, make bricks-and-mortar accommodation unsuitable. Psychiatric risk must be assessed in context, including its cause and whether alternative accommodation would avoid it.

A section 202 review addresses accommodation available from the authority’s existing resources. It does not require an inquiry into historic planning policy, strategic site provision, or the acquisition of land for an individual applicant.

Three Irish travellers displaced from the unauthorised Dale Farm site appealed against the dismissal by the Southend County Court of their statutory appeals under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. The Council had offered each appellant conventional housing and had upheld the offers as suitable on review under section 202.

All three appellants relied on a cultural aversion to bricks-and-mortar accommodation. Psychiatric evidence concerning Mr and Mrs Sheridan additionally identified risks of depression and, for Mr Sheridan, deterioration in his management of serious physical conditions. The review panel found that no caravan pitches were available and that appropriate health and support services could be accessed.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the accommodation fell below the minimum standard of suitability, whether the Council could rely on a shortage allegedly caused by inadequate historic site provision, and whether it had made sufficient enquiries into permanent or temporary sites.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The section 202 review decisions disclosed no error of law. Patten LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Pitchford LJ and the Chancellor agreed.

2. The duty under sections 193 and 206 of the Housing Act 1996 is to secure accommodation suitable for the particular applicant. The duty is absolute, although suitability is elastic. Resources and the availability of housing may be considered, but cannot justify accommodation below the minimum level which a reasonable authority could regard as suitable.

3. Following Codona and Lee, a traveller’s cultural aversion to bricks-and-mortar accommodation does not by itself render such accommodation unsuitable. The authority must give genuine special consideration to the traveller’s way of life and make proper enquiries about available sites. If no land is available or readily available, conventional housing may satisfy the statutory duty and article 8.

4. Psychiatric harm does not invariably place accommodation below the minimum standard. Some impairments may be so serious that the accommodation cannot reasonably be regarded as suitable, while lesser or manageable risks may not have that effect. The authority must consider the evidence and the cause and likely consequences of the identified risk.

5. The panel was entitled to uphold the offers made to Mr and Mrs Sheridan. Their principal psychiatric risks arose from removal from Dale Farm and separation from family support. Those consequences would not have been avoided by offering separate caravan pitches under their separate housing applications. The panel could therefore regard the risks as existing problems capable of being addressed through health and support services.

6. Section 202 did not require the reviewing officer to investigate the Council’s historical planning policies, homelessness strategy, or alleged failure to provide sufficient traveller sites. The review had the narrower function of deciding whether an offer from the authority’s existing resources adequately met the applicant’s needs. Section 193 did not require the Council to acquire land for individual caravan pitches.

7. The Council had examined the sites identified on the appellants’ behalf and made enquiries beyond its district. There was no evidence that it had overlooked an obviously suitable permanent or temporary site. Permitting continued occupation of Dale Farm was inconsistent with the earlier lawful enforcement action.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed all three second appeals and upheld the section 202 review decisions: [2012] EWCA Civ 335.
2. Southend County Court: HH Judge Peter Dedman dismissed the appellants’ section 204 appeals in a reserved judgment handed down on 4 November 2010. No neutral citation is stated.
3. Basildon Borough Council review panel: Upheld the suitability of the conventional housing offered to each appellant under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.