Kannan v Newham LBC

The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Kannan's appeal against the reviewing officer's decision that temporary accommodation at 157a High Street North was "suitable" for the purposes of the full housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. Key legal principles applied were the statutory duty in section 193 to secure accommodation, the Secretary of State's guidance and Orders on suitability, and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The court held that the reviewer had misunderstood and down‑graded the independent medical assessment (which identified a need for ground‑floor or lift‑accessible accommodation and accessible bathing facilities), failed to take adequate account of the passage of time in assessing temporary accommodation, and did not address the lack of accessible bathing facilities or give adequate reasons regarding the effects of the appellant's disability. Because the decision lacked the required sharp focus on the claimant's disability and adequate reasoning, it could not stand.

Background and facts:

• Mr Kannan and his family were accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need on 3 August 2016, engaging the full housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. Since 5 August 2016 they had occupied a first‑floor flat above a shop with access by an external metal staircase of 14 steps and a bathroom without a shower. The accommodation is privately owned and has been occupied for an extended period.
• Mr Kannan suffers from chronic health and mobility problems and the respondent accepted that these amount to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. He complained from the time of occupation about the stairs and the lack of a shower.
• Newham obtained a medical assessment from Dr Thakore who concluded that reasonable preference applied on medical grounds and that future housing needs required 'ground floor maximum if unlifted, any floor with a lift' and 'accessible bathing facilities'. Newham nonetheless twice concluded the accommodation was suitable and the second decision of 31 October 2017 (the fresh review) upheld suitability.

Procedural posture: The appellant challenged the decision to the county court; Recorder Howlett dismissed the appeal on 26 April 2018. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the accommodation provided was "suitable" within the meaning of the homelessness regime (including the Secretary of State's guidance and the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 where relevant);
• How the public sector equality duty under section 149 Equality Act 2010 should inform the suitability assessment and the reviewing officer's approach;
• Whether the reviewing officer's decision sufficiently explained and justified the conclusions reached, including treatment of the medical evidence, the passage of time and the absence of accessible bathing facilities.

Court's reasoning and outcome: The court applied authorities on suitability and the equality duty (including Birmingham CC v Ali, Hotak, Haque and Lomax). It held that suitability is a question of degree that may change with time; a review must consider the likely period of occupation. The reviewing officer had misunderstood Dr Thakore's assessment (which identified housing needs rather than mere conveniences), had not considered how the passage of time could render previously tolerable temporary accommodation unsuitable, had down‑graded the appellant's account of pain without explanation, failed to address the lack of accessible bathing facilities and had not carried out the required sharp focus under the public sector equality duty. For these reasons the review was inadequate and the appeal was allowed.

Appeal allowed. The reviewing officer's decision that the temporary accommodation was suitable was set aside because he misunderstood the medical assessment, failed to give adequate reasons, did not take proper account of the passage of time in assessing temporary accommodation, and failed to apply the public sector equality duty with the required sharp focus on the appellant's disability and needs.

Appeal to the County Court (Central London County Court, Recorder Howlett, D40CL427) dismissed on 26 April 2018; appeal to the Court of Appeal heard and allowed: [2019] EWCA Civ 57.