SK, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

A housing needs assessment under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 must analyse the circumstances causing homelessness and assess the housing needs of the applicant and every person with whom the applicant resides or might reasonably be expected to reside. That duty applies on review as well as at the initial assessment stage. An assessment must do more than record facts or identify needs; it must provide an evaluative basis for a personalised housing plan. A revised assessment must be notified in writing without unreasonable delay.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Royal Borough’s failure to prepare a lawful housing needs assessment and personalised housing plan, and its failure to secure suitable accommodation under the Housing Act 1996. Two children had profound disabilities and other children were subject to ongoing care proceedings. The authority conceded that the existing accommodation was unsuitable and that it had breached its accommodation duty. The central issues were whether the November 2023 assessment and plan were lawful and what relief should follow.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The November 2023 housing needs assessment was unlawful. Under section 189A(2) of the Housing Act 1996, the assessment had to address the circumstances causing homelessness and the housing needs of the claimant and persons with whom she resided or might reasonably be expected to reside. That obligation applied on review; restricting the assessment to the claimant and the child currently living with her was impermissible while care proceedings might result in other children returning home (paras [41]–[45]).
2. An assessment requires analysis and evaluation, not merely the identification or recording of needs. The authority could cross-refer to earlier assessments and have regard to relevant information held by other departments, but the evidence did not show that relevant occupational-therapy material had been taken into account (paras [36]–[40]).
3. The personalised plan was unlawful because it rested on the defective assessment. The authority was not required to provide further detail about how it would search for suitable accommodation. It was, however, required to consult the applicant before changing the assessment or plan and to notify her in writing of the change under section 189A(10). The notification was unreasonably delayed (para [46]).
4. The court accepted that section 11 of the Children Act 2004 imposes a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote children’s welfare in individual cases as well as in general policies, but found it unnecessary to decide whether that duty had independently been breached (para [47]).
5. On Ground 2, the authority’s concessions established a breach of the duty to secure suitable accommodation. Relief was adjourned. The authority was ordered to produce a new assessment and plan within 14 days, reconsider the suitability of 127 Canterbury Avenue within a further seven days, and notify the claimant’s solicitors. The application for relief was adjourned pending the Family Court’s care determination (paras [49]–[53]).