UO v London Borough of Redbridge

The claimant, a homeless single mother with three children, challenged the defendant local authority's decisions about interim and settled housing under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. The court held that the authority failed to carry out adequate inquiries or a proper housing needs assessment and personalised housing plan under section 189A, did not lawfully review those decisions under section 189A(9), and therefore could not lawfully conclude that its offers of hotel accommodation and of self-contained accommodation in Peterborough were suitable for the purposes of sections 188(1) and 193(2). The court found material failures to consider the location and educational impact on the children (section 11(2) Children Act 2004, and the Homelessness Orders and Code of Guidance), and that termination of the full housing duty under section 193(5) based on the Peterborough offer was therefore unlawful.

Background and parties: The claimant is a refugee single mother of three children attending school and nursery in Tottenham. She applied for homelessness assistance from the defendant London Borough of Redbridge after eviction from National Asylum Support Service accommodation. The defendant repeatedly accommodated the family in a series of hotels lacking cooking and laundry facilities and distant from the children's school, and later offered self-contained housing in Peterborough which the claimant refused.

Procedural posture and relief sought: The claimant issued judicial review proceedings seeking declarations and relief that the defendant had failed in its statutory duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (notably sections 188, 189A, 189B and 193) and under section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004. The case was expedited; the defendant failed repeatedly to comply with procedural directions and was limited in its ability to adduce further written evidence. Interim relief ordering accommodation pending final determination was granted during the proceedings. The hearing took place before Lane J on 28 March and 26 April 2023.

Issues framed: (i) Whether the defendant carried out a lawful housing needs assessment and prepared a lawful personalised housing plan in accordance with section 189A (Ground 1); (ii) whether the defendant carried out lawful reviews of the assessment, plan and of the suitability of repeated hotel placements and the Peterborough offers under section 189A(9) (Ground 2); (iii) whether the authority's suitability decisions under sections 188(1) and 193(2) (and the Homelessness Orders/Code) were lawful, taking into account the educational and welfare needs of the children and affordability/suitability factors (Ground 3); and (iv) whether termination of the full housing duty under section 193(5) was lawful in circumstances where the Peterborough offer was contested (Ground 4).

Court’s reasoning and findings: The court found that the defendant's initial contact and correspondence (including a single brief telephone call) did not amount to a meaningful interview or adequate inquiry; the RAPP (relief assessment and personalised plan) was produced without proper assessment of location or the impact on the children's education and was insufficiently reasoned and unsigned as to agreement. The defendant failed to undertake or record reasonable inquiries about nearer self-contained or hostel accommodation or to engage with the school, despite representations and a headteacher's letter explaining the importance of stability for the children, particularly the elder child approaching SATs. The defendant also failed to carry out lawful reviews when new material emerged and when each hotel placement and later Peterborough offers were made. On suitability, the hotels (B&B style) were unsuitable given distance, lack of facilities and detrimental effects on health, finances and education; the Peterborough offers were irrational given the likely need to change school mid-year and lack of assurance of school places. The court rejected the defendant's submission that the existence of alternative statutory review remedies required dismissal of the JR, relying on relevant authority that the court may nonetheless determine the merits in the interests of justice and efficiency. The court concluded that grounds 1–4 succeeded and that the authority's purported termination of its duty under section 193(5) was unlawful.

Remedy: The judicial review succeeded on grounds 1–4. The judge ordered the parties to attempt to agree an order containing relief and consequential matters; failing agreement, written submissions were to be filed and served.

The claim is allowed. The court held that the defendant unlawfully failed to make adequate inquiries and a lawful housing needs assessment and personalised housing plan under section 189A, failed to carry out required reviews under section 189A(9), and therefore could not lawfully conclude that its hotel placements or the offers of accommodation in Peterborough were suitable under sections 188(1) and 193(2). The consequent purported termination of the full housing duty under section 193(5) was also unlawful. Relief was to be agreed between the parties or determined on further submissions.