El-Dinnaoui v Westminster City Council

A housing authority generally decides what inquiries are necessary when reviewing the suitability of offered accommodation. Its decision is unlawful where no reasonable authority could have failed to regard a proposed further inquiry as necessary.

A court should interpret a housing review decision benevolently, realistically and practically. It should avoid an excessively technical or exacting approach. Nevertheless, a suitability finding is irrational where the review officer disregards specific and uncontradicted medical evidence that the accommodation would exacerbate a household member’s medical condition. If the officer doubts the reliability of the person whose account underlies that evidence, the appropriate course may be to obtain a further medical opinion.

The appellant’s family occupied a ninth-floor flat and required larger accommodation. The housing authority offered a three-bedroom flat on the sixteenth floor. When the appellant’s wife viewed it, her longstanding fear of heights caused a panic attack, collapse and hospital attendance. Her general practitioner recommended accommodation on a lower floor because moving to the offered flat risked further panic attacks and anxiety.

The authority’s Review Officer found the flat suitable, reasoning that the appellant’s wife had lived on a high floor for several years and would settle in time. The authority consequently treated its housing duty as discharged under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996.

HHJ Bailey dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Review Officer had made sufficient inquiries, had properly addressed the nature of the fear of heights, and had reached a rational conclusion on suitability.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The Court of Appeal quashed the Review Officer’s decision that the sixteenth-floor flat was suitable for the family.

2. The challenge to the sufficiency of the Review Officer’s inquiries failed. Applying Cramp v Hastings BC [2005] HLR 48, the authority was responsible for judging what inquiries were necessary. A court could intervene only if no reasonable authority could have failed to regard the suggested further inquiries as necessary. The appellant’s solicitors had made no specific request for further inquiry, and the Review Officer had already sought clarification from the general practitioner. At that stage, a reasonable authority could decide not to commission an independent medical report.

3. Following Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7, [2009] 1 WLR 413, a court should interpret a review decision benevolently. It should adopt a realistic and practical approach rather than search technically for defects or inconsistencies. That approach does not require a court to accept incomprehensible, misguided or irrational reasoning.

4. The Review Officer’s central conclusion that the appellant’s wife would settle in the property with time was irrational. She had collapsed during the viewing, required hospital treatment and received a diagnosis of acute anxiety attacks triggered by exposure to heights. Her general practitioner repeatedly advised that a move to the offered flat would exacerbate her condition and cause further panic attacks and anxiety. There was no contrary expert medical evidence, so the Review Officer was not entitled simply to disregard that evidence.

5. The Review Officer also failed to account adequately for the material difference between the existing and proposed flats. The street was not directly visible from the existing flat, whereas it was clearly visible from the sixteenth-floor flat. The suggested use of thick nets, curtains or blinds did not rationally answer whether living there was suitable.

6. The suitability finding fell outside the range of decisions lawfully available to the Review Officer and was legally perverse. If she doubted the reliability or veracity of the appellant’s wife, she needed to obtain a further medical opinion before rejecting the medical case. David Richards J and Hughes LJ agreed with Sir Alan Ward.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal unanimously and quashed the Review Officer’s decision: [2013] EWCA Civ 231.
2. Central London County Court: HHJ Bailey dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Review Officer’s decision.
3. Housing authority review: The Review Officer upheld the housing officer’s decision that the offered accommodation was suitable and that the authority’s duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 had ended.