Comte Leaf Saint Sepulchre, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

When exercising the discretion under Housing Act 1996, section 188(3), a housing authority must balance fairness between homeless applicants against the possibility that the applicant is entitled to accommodation. It must assess the apparent merits of the review, any new material capable of affecting the original decision, and the applicant’s personal circumstances and likely consequences.

The authority must make sufficient, fair and sympathetic inquiries. It must engage with the applicant’s account, vulnerabilities, disability and relevant new evidence. Merely recording the relevant factors or relying on third-party information without seeking the applicant’s response is insufficient.

The claimant, a vulnerable man with serious physical and mental health conditions, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority’s refusal to provide accommodation pending review of its decision that he was not homeless because he could reasonably occupy accommodation in Cornwall.

The authority had considered information from the Cornwall landlord, the claimant’s health and social-care needs, housing scarcity and the interests of other homeless households. The claimant argued that the authority had failed to make adequate inquiries, properly consider new information and personal consequences, and comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The central issue was whether the authority had lawfully exercised its discretion under section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded. The decisions refusing interim accommodation were quashed, and a mandatory order required the defendant to continue providing suitable accommodation under section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 pending completion of the statutory review.
2. The authority had to apply the balancing approach identified in R v Camden LBC ex parte Mohammed. Relevant considerations included the apparent merits of the original decision, new material capable of affecting it, and the applicant’s personal circumstances and the consequences of refusing accommodation. Those considerations were not exhaustive, and the discretion was available only in exceptional circumstances (paras [26]-[31]).
3. The authority’s inquiries were deficient. It relied substantially on the Cornwall landlord’s account without obtaining the claimant’s response through his known solicitors. It did not adequately consider the claimant’s alleged assaults, distrust of the police, mental illness, disability, Care Act assessment, hospital admissions, or the evidential basis for assuming that equivalent care would be available in Cornwall (paras [48]-[63]).
4. The failure was material to the balancing exercise. The claimant’s case was strong because the information relied upon had not been properly tested, and the decision involved at least a finely balanced judgment. Recognition of the Public Sector Equality Duty in the decision letters did not demonstrate that the duty had been applied through the inquiry process (paras [60]-[65]).
5. The court did not need to determine irrationality separately, having found the exercise of discretion unlawful for inadequate inquiries and insufficiently reasoned consideration of new information (para [64]).