Ryan v City of Westminster

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in a homelessness case, the court held that a reviewing officer must evaluate conflicting medical evidence fairly, including by recognising whether an authority’s medical adviser had examined the applicant. The absence of such an examination does not prevent the officer from considering that evidence. Vulnerability must be assessed by reference to an ordinary person when made homeless, rather than a typical homeless person. A reviewing officer must examine the applicant’s individual and cumulative circumstances, including any claimed special reason for vulnerability. Permission should be refused where the decision shows that those matters were properly considered, the alleged legal error is absent, and the proposed appeal has no realistic prospect of success or raises no important point of principle or practice.

Mr Amir Ryan appealed to the Central London County Court against Westminster City Council’s decision that he was not in priority need under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 because he was not vulnerable. The Recorder dismissed that appeal on 30 October 2014. Mr Ryan renewed his application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.

He relied on alleged failures to evaluate conflicting medical evidence and to consider properly the cumulative effect of his mental and physical difficulties, criminal convictions, childhood experiences, time in care and discovery of his mother’s body. The central questions were whether the reviewing officer had applied the correct vulnerability approach and whether the proposed appeal met the permission threshold.

1. Application refused. This was a renewed application for permission to appeal from the Recorder’s dismissal of Mr Ryan’s appeal against Westminster City Council’s homelessness decision.
2. The reviewing officer was entitled to consider the authority’s medical advice even though the authority’s medical advisers had not examined Mr Ryan. The officer had to compare like with like and take that limitation into account, as explained in Shala & Anr v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 624. The decision showed that the officer knew of both the authority’s and Mr Ryan’s medical evidence and had addressed the relevant limitation.
3. The officer had also considered whether Mr Ryan was vulnerable for a special reason. That required detailed consideration of the individual circumstances and their cumulative effect. The decision addressed the combined impact of his health problems, criminal convictions, childhood trauma, time in care and other circumstances, and concluded that they did not make him less able to fend for himself than an ordinary person when made homeless.
4. Hotak v Southwark LBC (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2015] 2 WLR 1341 had clarified that the comparator is an ordinary person when made homeless, not an ordinary or typical homeless person. That clarification did not assist Mr Ryan because the reviewing officer had not used the impermissible comparator.
5. Under the applicable second-appeal threshold, permission could be granted only if the case raised an important point of principle or practice or there was another compelling reason. Neither ground had a realistic prospect of success, and no compelling reason justified permission.

Order: Application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 17 November 2015, the court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. Central London County Court: The Recorder dismissed Mr Ryan’s appeal from Westminster City Council’s decision on 30 October 2014.
3. Westminster City Council: The authority decided that Mr Ryan was not in priority need under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 because he was not vulnerable.