Barrett, R (On the Application Of) v City of Westminster Council

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant's decisions (1 May, 19 May, 20 May and 3 June 2015) refusing to exercise its discretion under section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review of her Part 7 homelessness application. The court analysed the relevant statutory framework (sections 175, 184, 188(3), 189, 193 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996) and the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and considered the recent Supreme Court guidance in Hotak v London Borough of Southwark [2015] UKSC 30 and the earlier Pereira authority.

The judge concluded that the council had not given conscientious consideration to material points in the claimant's medical and housing history in its Mohammed-form review letters: those subsequent review decisions were unlawful for failing to take proper account of the claimant's vulnerabilities and for paying lip service to relevant evidence and duties. The original decision was not declared unlawful, but three subsequent Mohammed decisions were quashed and the council was ordered to reconsider whether to provide temporary accommodation pending review.

Background and parties: The claimant, aged 58, applied to the defendant local authority on 7 April 2015 for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. She alleged a prolonged history of homelessness, rough sleeping and serious medical and psychiatric conditions. The defendant refused to secure accommodation pending review under section 188(3). The claimant sought judicial review of four decisions dated 1 May, 19 May, 20 May and 3 June 2015.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claim challenged the lawfulness of the council's decisions refusing interim accommodation pending review. The claimant relied on the council's duties under the Housing Act 1996 (notably sections 175, 184, 188(3), 189 and 193), the right to review under section 204, and the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The principal relief sought was an order quashing the impugned decisions and a mandatory order requiring the council to reconsider whether to provide accommodation pending review; interim accommodation was also sought.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the authority had made the necessary inquiries under section 184(1) and had applied the correct approach to vulnerability under section 189 in light of Hotak v London Borough of Southwark [2015] UKSC 30 and earlier authority (Pereira).
• Whether the Mohammed-form review letters demonstrated conscientious consideration of the new evidence and the claimant's circumstances.
• Whether the council had complied with its public sector equality duty.

Court's reasoning and findings: The judge reviewed the statutory scheme and emphasised that the authority bears responsibility to make necessary inquiries when it has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness (section 184). Hotak was treated as clarifying the appropriate comparison in assessing vulnerability under section 189. The court accepted that the authority had attempted some inquiries but found that, in respect of the three Mohammed-form review responses (especially the first two), the council gave insufficient, formulaic reasons that failed to address material new evidence (notably the detailed medical and occupational therapist information and the claimant's history of rough sleeping). That approach did not amount to the conscientious consideration required; it risked paying lip service to the relevant tests and the public sector equality duty. The judge therefore held the three Mohammed review decisions unlawful. The original decision was not quashed.

Relief granted and procedural outcome: The court quashed the three Mohammed decisions and ordered the defendant to reconsider promptly whether to provide accommodation pending review, requiring the renewed decision by close of business on the coming Friday. The court declined to make an interim accommodation order immediately, giving liberty to apply if the renewed decision was not taken. Costs were awarded to the claimant ("You have your costs and whatever taxation is relevant").

The claim succeeded in part. The court quashed three of the defendant's Mohammed-form review decisions (the 1 May, 19 May and 20 May 2015 review responses) because they did not demonstrate conscientious consideration of the claimant's medical evidence, risk of rough sleeping and the applicable statutory tests, including the public sector equality duty and the Hotak guidance. The original decision was not quashed. The defendant was ordered to reconsider whether to provide accommodation pending review forthwith, with the renewed decision to be taken by close of business on the forthcoming Friday; costs were awarded to the claimant.