Oday Yabari, R (on the application of) v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster

The claimant sought judicial review of the local housing authority's handling of his priority homelessness application under section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 and alleged breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty. The principal legal issues were the engagement and timing of the section 188(1) interim accommodation duty, the meaning and application of the "reason to believe" threshold, and whether the authority lawfully discharged that duty by advising the claimant to remain in his existing accommodation pending investigation.

The court held that where a housing authority has a substantial pre-existing file and prior medical assessments that conflict with a claimant's fresh assertions, the authority is entitled to seek rapid and proportionate clarification of the medical and factual basis for a claimed need before changing its prior position. The claimant repeatedly failed to provide GP or consultant evidence and delayed returning required forms; the authority offered one-bedroom interim accommodation on 26 September 2022, which the claimant refused. The court found that the authority was entitled to request clarification and to offer interim accommodation based on its investigatory position. Although the authority’s conclusion that the claimant could remain in his seventh-floor flat was irrational insofar as it failed to take adequate account of fire risk, that illegality was rendered academic because the claimant had declined the interim offer and thereby suspended the authority’s obligation. The public sector equality duty was not breached on the evidence. The claim for declaratory relief and a mandatory injunction was dismissed.

The claimant, a wheelchair user living in a studio on the seventh floor, applied for priority homelessness assistance and sought a declaration and a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants (the local housing authority) to provide suitable interim accommodation (he sought a two-bedroom wheelchair-adapted property for night carers and privacy).

• Nature of the claim: judicial review of the authority's handling of an application for interim accommodation under section 188(1) Housing Act 1996 and an alleged breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty; remedies sought were a declaration and a mandatory order compelling suitable interim rehousing.
• Relevant issues framed by the parties: timing of the s.188(1) duty, whether non-statutory enquiries were carried out, whether the authority had to notify the claimant that it considered the duty engaged, lawfulness of discharging the duty by advising the claimant to remain at home, the rationality of that decision (including whether the short term had elapsed), PSED compliance and appropriate remedies.

The court reviewed a long pre-existing file including occupational therapy reports and an earlier medical assessment by the authority. The authority had a history of considering the claimant to need one-bedroom accommodation and day care, not 24-hour care or a second bedroom. The authority asked the claimant to provide GP and consultant details and other medical evidence; the claimant delayed and largely failed to provide those details and medical records. The authority offered one-bedroom interim accommodation on 26 September 2022, which the claimant refused, insisting on a two-bedroom council tenancy.

The court reasoned that the statutory s.188(1) threshold is low but that, where an authority has a substantial prior file that contradicts the applicant’s fresh assertions, it is lawful and reasonable for the authority to seek quick clarification before accepting that fresh assertions override earlier assessments. The claimant’s failure to provide medical evidence justified the authority’s clarification requests. The court held the authority’s decision to treat the claimant’s seventh-floor flat as suitable was irrational for not addressing fire risk, but that illegality had no practical effect because the claimant had refused the interim offer, thereby suspending the duty. The PSED was not breached because the authority had focussed on the claimant’s disabilities and had been prevented from further assessment by the claimant’s non-disclosure.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the authority was entitled to seek rapid and proportionate clarification of the claimant's medical evidence where historic file material and prior medical assessment contradicted the claimant's fresh assertions; the authority offered suitable interim one-bedroom accommodation on 26 September 2022 which the claimant refused, thereby suspending its duty. The authority’s decision that the claimant could remain in his seventh-floor flat was irrational because it failed to take adequate account of fire risk, but that illegality was rendered academic by the claimant’s refusal of the interim offer. The Public Sector Equality Duty was not breached. Accordingly, declarations and a mandatory injunction were refused.