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

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's refusal to continue to provide interim accommodation under section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 pending a statutory review of an adverse section 184 decision that he was not homeless. The court reviewed the familiar Mohammed balancing exercise (merits of the applicant's case; any new material; the applicant's personal circumstances) and the requirement to have regard to the Homelessness Code and the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The judge found material defects in the authority's inquiries and reasoning: the authority relied on information from the social housing landlord and absence of police reports without properly testing those matters with the claimant's solicitors, social worker or Care Act assessor, and without taking adequate account of the claimant's disability-related difficulties engaging with inquiries. Those defects undermined the balancing exercise under section 188(3). The decisions not to provide interim accommodation were quashed and a mandatory order was made requiring the authority to continue to provide suitable accommodation pending completion of the review.

Background and parties: The claimant, a 51-year-old wheelchair user with serious physical and mental health conditions, brought judicial review of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea's decision of 17 May 2023 declining to provide interim accommodation pending a statutory review of an adverse homelessness decision under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996. The defendant had concluded the claimant had accommodation in Cornwall (a Truro tenancy) which it was reasonable to occupy.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimant sought quashing of the decision refusing interim accommodation under section 188(3) and a mandatory order requiring continued provision of accommodation pending the outcome of the section 202 review. Interim relief had earlier been ordered by Lang J and permission for judicial review was granted by a deputy judge.

Issues framed: (i) whether the defendant carried out adequate inquiries before exercising its discretion under section 188(3); (ii) whether the decision was irrational; (iii) whether the authority properly considered new information (including a Care Act 2014 assessment and subsequent hospital admissions); and (iv) whether the authority complied with its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Court's reasoning: The court applied the Mohammed factors and the versions of the Homelessness Code referred to in the judgment. The judge identified several deficiencies in the authority's inquiries: reliance on the Truro landlord and absence of police reports without testing those lines of inquiry with the claimant's solicitors or social care professionals; failure to engage with or seek the claimant's solicitor's explanations about the landlord's position and the claimant's distrust of police; insufficient exploration of the Care Act assessment and the claimant's dependence on a wheelchair; and lack of inquiry into continuity of care if the claimant returned to Cornwall. The court held that the public sector equality duty was engaged but had not been demonstrated to have been properly applied in the inquiries or reasoning. The defects meant the balancing exercise under section 188(3) was unfair and the decisions not to provide interim accommodation could not stand.

Outcome: The decisions refusing interim accommodation and the review decision were quashed. The court made a mandatory order requiring the defendant to continue to provide suitable accommodation under section 188(3) pending completion of the statutory review.

The claim succeeded. The court quashed the defendant's 17 May 2023 decision and the subsequent review decision because material inquiries were inadequate and the balancing exercise under section 188(3) was unfair and insufficiently reasoned, including failures in relation to the public sector equality duty. The court made a mandatory order requiring continued provision of suitable accommodation pending the outcome of the statutory review.