Zahra Fatolahzadeh v London Borough of Barnet

A deficient or absent housing-needs assessment under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 does not automatically invalidate a later suitability decision. The assessment may be evidenced by the housing file as a whole, provided the authority makes reasonable inquiries and adopts a positive, collaborative approach. Where the applicant uses the statutory review procedure, the reviewing officer must assess suitability afresh. A review decision that adequately addresses and remedies the substantive deficiency supersedes the earlier decision and cannot be challenged under section 204 solely because of that earlier defect. Challenges to the assessment or personal housing plan ordinarily require judicial review. The statutory scheme does not prescribe a fixed interval for reviewing a personal housing plan, and procedural non-compliance does not result in invalidity unless that consequence fits the statutory purpose and structure.

The appellant was threatened with homelessness after receiving a notice seeking possession. The respondent accepted the prevention duty under section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996, prepared a personal housing plan, offered accommodation, and later upheld its suitability on a section 202 review.

The County Court at Central London dismissed her section 204 appeal in a judgment dated 29 July 2024 and order dated 17 October 2024. The appellant alleged that the respondent had failed to make a lawful housing-needs assessment and had failed to review the personal housing plan. The central issue was whether those alleged earlier defects invalidated an otherwise adequate suitability review decision.

The appeal was dismissed on both grounds. The Court of Appeal held that the County Court’s finding that Barnet had assessed the appellant’s case was plainly right.

1. The assessment duty under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 requires reasonable inquiries and a positive, collaborative approach. The assessment need not be contained in one document. The housing file may be considered as a whole from the perspective of a reasonable and sensible housing officer. Barnet’s interview, personal housing plan, medical advice, banding decision and subsequent dealings constituted a continuing assessment of the appellant’s case and needs.
2. The original assessment was insufficiently reasoned about the effect of distance from the appellant’s support network on suitability. That deficiency was remedied by the detailed review decision. A statutory suitability review requires the reviewing officer to consider suitability afresh. Where the review decision adequately addresses and remedies the earlier deficiency, the earlier defect cannot support a section 204 appeal. The reasoning in Abed v City of Westminster [2011] EWCA Civ 1406 and Norton v LB Haringey [2025] EWCA Civ 746 provided strong analogies. The observation at paragraph 31 of Norton was understood as referring to the consequences of an underlying decision being quashed, not as establishing a condition precedent to every suitability decision.
3. Section 202 provides specific review rights and does not create a general right to review the assessment or personal housing plan. A challenge to those matters may be brought by judicial review. Administrative acts remain valid unless and until quashed: Hoffman-La Roche & Co v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295; R (Noble Organisation) v Thanet DC [2005] EWCA Civ 782. The section 204 appeal concerned the suitability review decision, and Barnet had in fact had regard to its assessment as required by section 195(3).
4. The consequences of non-compliance with an imperative statutory requirement depend on statutory purpose, the structure of the legislation, the facts, and any prejudice or injustice. Total invalidity is not presumed: R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49; A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 27; R v Layden [2025] UKSC 12.
5. Section 189A(9) does not prescribe a fixed frequency for reviewing a personal housing plan. In the circumstances, less than a year had passed and there had been no material change. The alleged absence of the planned review therefore did not invalidate the later suitability decision. The appeal was dismissed on Ground 2 for the same essential reasons.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2025] EWCA Civ 1174, the appeal was dismissed on both grounds.
• County Court at Central London — HHJ Hellman dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal in a judgment dated 29 July 2024, followed by an order dated 17 October 2024.