Firrozmand v London Borough of Lambeth

In determining whether accommodation is suitable for a vulnerable homeless person, a local authority must apply the statutory framework in Housing Act 1996, including the relevant statutory parts and Secretary of State guidance. A decision letter which fails to address those matters may contain a fatal error of law. The authority must also cross-reference the applicant’s medical vulnerability with the suitability of the accommodation. The judgment granted permission to appeal on that issue; it did not finally determine the merits.

The applicant, a vulnerable homeless person with serious physical and mental health conditions, sought permission to appeal from the dismissal of his statutory appeal by the Central London County Court. The appeal concerned temporary accommodation offered by the respondent local authority. The proposed grounds alleged failures to consider the statutory material and guidance concerning suitability, and the applicant’s diagnosis of chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

The court granted permission on the first ground. It left the medical-diagnosis ground to the full court, observing that the later medical evidence might instead require a fresh decision.

1. Permission granted. Permission to appeal was granted on the ground that the decision maker and the lower court may have failed to have regard to the statutory material and guidance governing the suitability of accommodation for a vulnerable person.
2. Section 201(1) of the Housing Act 1996 imports Parts 1 to 4 of the Act and the relevant Secretary of State guidance. A local authority is, on the face of the statutory scheme, obliged to determine suitability by reference to that material and guidance.
3. A decision letter which makes no reference to the matters set out in Parts 1 to 4 and the guidance may be flawed. The asserted failure to inspect, assess and grade the suitability of the accommodation, including by cross-referencing the applicant’s medical vulnerability with suitability, raised an arguable and important question of law.
4. The court did not finally determine the ground concerning chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. The relevant diagnostic detail was apparently notified to the local authority only after the challenged decision, so that issue might properly require a fresh decision rather than establish an error of law in the statutory appeal.
5. The matter was directed to be listed before a full court of three Lord or Lady Justices, including a housing specialist, with an expedited timetable. The judge also indicated that mental health services should be involved.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — permission to appeal granted from the decision of the Central London County Court dated 29 January 2015.
2. Central London County Court — His Honour Judge Mitchell dismissed the statutory appeal from the local authority’s decision dated 22 October 2014.