Ajilore v London Borough of Hackney

Vulnerability under section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 requires a composite assessment in the statutory context. The Pereira formulation is a judicial guide, not a substitute for the statute. The applicant must be compared with an ordinary homeless person, and the authority must assess whether greater injury or detriment would result. A risk of drug relapse may constitute detriment, but does not automatically establish vulnerability. A section 204 appeal is confined to legal error. Courts must respect the authority’s evaluative judgment and read review reasons practically. Statistical or factual errors do not invalidate a decision unless they materially infect the reasoning.

Edward Ajilore applied as homeless under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, relying on depression, suicidal risk, past drug use and the risk of relapse. Hackney concluded that he was not vulnerable under section 189(1)(c) and therefore was not in priority need. The reviewing officer confirmed that decision.

HHJ Mitchell dismissed Mr Ajilore’s appeal to the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned the proper comparator, the effect of statistical errors, whether relapse could constitute detriment, and the adequacy of the review reasons.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision that the appellant was not vulnerable and was not in priority need.
2. The jurisdiction under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 is limited to points of law and is essentially supervisory. Factual findings and evaluative judgments belong primarily to the local housing authority. The court may intervene for legal misdirection, irrationality, absence of evidence or a conclusion that was not reasonably open to the authority.
3. Under section 189(1)(c), vulnerability requires a composite assessment. The authority must apply the statutory language, using the guidance in R v Camden LBC ex parte Pereira (1998) 31 HLR 317 as an interpretative guide rather than as a statutory formula. The relevant comparison is with an ordinary homeless person assessed in the real world. That comparator may include homeless people with mental-health or drug problems.
4. A risk of relapse into Class A drug use is capable of constituting detriment. It does not necessarily make an applicant vulnerable. Griffin v Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 108 and Crossley v Westminster City Council [2005] EWCA 602 recognise that such cases fall within a fact-sensitive grey area. The reviewing officer was entitled to conclude that the appellant’s risk did not differentiate him from the ordinary homeless person.
5. The statistical error concerning self-harm incidence did not materially infect the decision. The reviewing officer’s essential reasoning rested on the appellant’s medical evidence, the assessed risk, and the officer’s experience. The reasons, read as a whole, adequately explained the decision. A practical approach was required under Holmes-Moorhouse v London Borough of Richmond [2009] UKHL 7.
6. Underhill LJ agreed with the result and added that the ordinary homeless comparator cannot be determined purely statistically. That qualification did not alter the conclusion that the reviewing officer’s essential reasoning was lawful.

1. Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court: HHJ Mitchell dismissed the appeal against Hackney’s review decision on 22 July 2013.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously: [2014] EWCA Civ 1273.