Amina Ahamed, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey

Accommodation which is suitable for the purpose of ending the relief duty under section 189B(7)(a) of the Housing Act 1996 may, in principle, still be accommodation which it is not reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy. The concepts are distinct. However, where suitable accommodation is likely to remain available for at least six months, the same circumstances will commonly mean that the applicant is not homeless.

A housing authority need make only such inquiries as are necessary for its decision. In reviewing suitability for a disabled applicant, it must focus rigorously on the relevant impairments, resulting disadvantages and accommodation needs. A review decision may be read realistically and as a whole, provided that it shows proper consideration of the relevant matters and gives sufficient reasons.

The appellant was placed by the respondent council in a hostel room with shared facilities after leaving asylum-support accommodation. The council concluded that the room was suitable, ended its relief duty under section 189B of the Housing Act 1996, and decided that the appellant was no longer homeless and was not owed the main housing duty.

Her application for judicial review was refused by Upper Tribunal Judge Ward, sitting as a High Court judge: [2022] EWHC 1086 (Admin). She also sought a statutory review under section 202. The resulting section 204 appeal was transferred from the County Court to the Court of Appeal.

The central issues were whether the accommodation was suitable, whether adequate inquiries and compliance with the public sector equality duty had occurred, and whether ending the relief duty necessarily meant that the appellant was not homeless.

1. Both appeals were dismissed. The review officer was entitled to conclude that the hostel room was suitable and that the relief duty had ended under section 189B(5) and (7)(a) of the Housing Act 1996.

2. Suitability and the reasonableness of continued occupation under section 175(3) are distinct, albeit related, concepts. It is possible for an applicant to have suitable accommodation available for at least six months within section 189B(7)(a), yet remain homeless because continued occupation would not be reasonable. That possibility will be uncommon. Accommodation suitable and available on that basis will often also be accommodation which it is reasonable to continue to occupy. Availability need not be indefinite; the question is whether the person can reasonably be expected to remain for so long as they must do so unless the authority acts.

3. The absence of a final accommodation offer or final Part 6 offer under section 193A was immaterial. If the applicant was no longer homeless, the condition in section 193(1)(a)(i) was not met and the main housing duty could not arise.

4. The section 184 duty is to make necessary, rather than every possible, inquiry. The review officer had sufficient information about the appellant's medical conditions, diet, toilet facilities and expenditure. He was entitled to rely on the medical records, NHS advice, discussions with the surgery and health care assistant, and the additional opportunity given for representations. Any possible deficiency in the earlier assessment and personalised housing plan had not affected the review decision.

5. The public sector equality duty was met. The review officer recognised that the appellant was disabled, considered the particular effects of her conditions and addressed whether the hostel's food and shared facilities met the resulting needs. Read fairly and as a whole, the decision letter showed the requisite rigorous and open-minded consideration. It also adequately gave reasons for the conclusion that she was not homeless.

Newey LJ gave the judgment, with which Underhill LJ and Sir Geoffrey Vos MR agreed. In a postscript, the court stressed that challenges to homelessness decisions should generally proceed through the statutory review and County Court appeal route, rather than judicial review.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal from the refusal of permission for judicial review and the transferred statutory appeal: [2023] EWCA Civ 975.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Upper Tribunal Judge Ward, sitting as a High Court judge, refused permission to apply for judicial review because the statutory review and appeal process was an appropriate alternative remedy: [2022] EWHC 1086 (Admin).
• County Court at Central London: The appellant's appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 was transferred to the Court of Appeal.
• London Borough of Haringey: On review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, the council confirmed that the relief duty had ended and that the appellant was not homeless.