UO v London Borough of Redbridge

A housing authority assessing homelessness duties must make reasonable, case-specific inquiries into the applicant household’s needs and the suitability of accommodation. The assessment must address location, education, welfare, facilities and alternatives, and must inform a properly reasoned personalised housing plan. A policy identifying GCSE or A-level pupils and children with special educational needs cannot operate as an exhaustive rule. New relevant information requires review. A general shortage of housing does not remove the duty to investigate and evidence available alternatives. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a family is subject to strict statutory limits. A refusal can end the full accommodation duty only where the authority has established that the offered accommodation is suitable.

The claimant, a refugee and homeless mother of three children, challenged the London Borough of Redbridge’s handling of her homelessness application. The authority accepted the relief duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, provided accommodation in successive hotels, later accepted the full accommodation duty, and offered self-contained accommodation in Peterborough. The claimant argued that the housing needs assessment and personalised housing plan were unlawful, that subsequent reviews and suitability assessments were inadequate, that the accommodation was unsuitable, and that termination of the full duty was invalid. The central issues were the adequacy of the authority’s inquiries and consideration of the children’s education and welfare, the effect of housing shortages, and whether judicial review should proceed despite statutory review and appeal routes.

1. Grounds 1 and 2 succeeded. The authority’s initial assessment was produced after a cursory telephone call, without meaningful questions about the children’s needs, consultation with the claimant, or inquiries of the school. It did not assess the need for accommodation within reasonable travelling distance, the disruption caused by repeated moves or school changes, or the availability of alternatives. The assessment and personalised plan were therefore unlawful under sections 189A(1) to (6) of the Housing Act 1996.
2. The review duty under section 189A(9) required the authority to reconsider the assessment and plan when it received relevant information from the claimant, her support worker and the headteacher. No lawful review was undertaken. The repeated hotel placements and the Peterborough suitability assessment were also inadequately investigated and reasoned.
3. Suitability required a reasonable inquiry and evaluative process. Relevant matters included household needs, location, educational disruption, social considerations, the length of occupation, alternatives, resources, urgency and affordability. The authority’s reliance on an acute housing shortage, without evidence of what alternatives had been investigated or why they could not be offered, was insufficient. Its policy could not be applied mechanically by treating GCSE or A-level study and special educational needs as exhaustive categories.
4. The children’s welfare duty under section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 was a process duty. The authority had to identify the children’s needs and evaluate the likely physical, psychological, social, educational and economic impact of its decisions. It was not enough to focus on externally assessed examinations.
5. The hotel accommodation was unsuitable in the circumstances. The long journeys, repeated moves, absence of cooking and laundry facilities, and harmful effects on the children were material. The authority had not shown that no alternative suitable accommodation was available. The Peterborough offers were likewise irrational because they required a school move during the academic year without adequate inquiry into places and disruption.
6. The statutory review and County Court appeal routes did not require dismissal of the judicial review in this case. The claim raised closely connected issues already fully argued, and requiring a further review would cause delay and unnecessary expenditure. Ground 4 also succeeded: under section 193(5)(a), the full accommodation duty could end after refusal only if the authority had satisfied itself that the offer was suitable. The Peterborough offer was not suitable, so the purported termination was unlawful.

Judicial review proceedings were issued on 14 January 2023. Permission was granted on all grounds by Lang J on 14 February 2023, and the claim proceeded on an expedited basis. No prior judgment on the merits was stated.