YR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

Under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, suitability is relative and must be assessed by reference to the household’s needs, the accommodation’s location, duration, urgency, available alternatives and the authority’s resources. Where an out-of-borough placement for school-age children is contemplated, the authority must assess educational welfare and likely disruption, make reasonable inquiries about school arrangements, and give adequate reasons. A written s 189A assessment and personalised housing plan must show that statutory duties and any published placement policy have been addressed. The review duty requires reconsideration of current suitability and nearer alternatives. A failure in those processes may vitiate an interim accommodation decision.

The claimant was a homeless single mother caring for seven children. Lambeth Council assessed her housing needs under s 189A of the Housing Act 1996 and offered four-bedroom interim accommodation in East Tilbury, outside Lambeth. Six children attended schools in Lambeth, including one entering Year 11, and the claimant relied on local support networks and employment.

The claimant sought judicial review, alleging failures in the initial assessment, personalised housing plan, review process, application of the council’s placements policy, consideration of children’s welfare, and assessment of suitability under ss 188, 206 and 208. The central issues were whether the assessment and review were lawful and whether the East Tilbury accommodation was suitable.

The application for judicial review succeeded on Grounds 1 to 3. The application to amend to add Ground 4 was refused.

1. Assessment and inquiries. An assessment under s 189A of the Housing Act 1996 had to address the needs of all household members. Where an out-of-borough transfer of school-age children was contemplated, educational welfare and disruption were mandatory considerations. The council had to make reasonable inquiries about the effect of changing schools and liaise with the receiving authority to establish that suitable educational arrangements were available. The principles in Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22 and Secretary of State for Education v Tameside [1977] AC 1014 applied.
2. Reasons. The written assessment and personalised housing plan had to be sufficiently reasoned to demonstrate consideration of suitability, the s 208 location duty, children’s welfare and the council’s published placements policy. A benevolent reading was appropriate, following XY v Haringey LBC [2019] EWHC 2276 (Admin), but compliance could not be inferred from documents that were silent on key needs. The absence of a general duty to give reasons for an isolated s 188 decision, recognised in Akhtar v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 383 and Alibkhiet v London Borough of Brent [2018] EWCA Civ 2742, did not answer the distinct statutory duty introduced by s 189A.
3. Review. Section 189A(9), read with the Code of Guidance, required a fresh review of the assessment, recorded steps and accommodation. The council had to consider whether nearer suitable accommodation was available or might reasonably become available at the review date. The later Suitability Assessment was a genuine review but failed to investigate nearer alternatives and actual school availability.
4. Placement policy and outcome. The council failed to apply its policy, under which a household with a child entering Year 11 fell within Group B. The placement decision was also irrational because it rested on inadequate and inaccurate information. The court made declarations, quashed the s 188(1) decision and directed reconsideration in accordance with the judgment. It imposed no deadline and made no mandatory order.

The court left open whether s 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 must be read consistently with article 3.1 of the UNCRC, and whether s 188(1) accommodation is also a step under s 189B(2) attracting statutory review rights.