Thomas Norton v London Borough of Haringey

Failure to complete the assessment and personalised housing plan required by section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 does not automatically invalidate a subsequent decision that offered accommodation is suitable. The court must ask whether Parliament intended non-compliance to produce invalidity, having regard to the statutory structure, the requirement’s purpose and the consequences of the breach.

A suitability decision is unlawful where it is based on a legally flawed section 189A assessment. It may nevertheless be lawful without such an assessment where the authority independently possesses sufficient information, applies the statutory suitability requirements and causes the applicant no material prejudice or injustice.

The local authority accepted that the appellant, a single parent with epilepsy, was owed the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. It offered accommodation which the appellant challenged as unsuitable. The reviewing officer rejected his complaints and upheld the offer without the authority first preparing the revised section 189A assessment which it had agreed to produce.

HHJ Saggerson dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal. He held that a lawful section 189A assessment and personalised housing plan were not conditions precedent to a valid suitability decision. The appellant appealed on the hard-edged question whether their absence necessarily precluded the authority from lawfully determining suitability.

1. The appeal was dismissed. An assessment under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 performs an important role and is expressed as an imperative duty. Its absence does not, however, automatically invalidate every later decision. The governing question is whether Parliament intended non-compliance to have that consequence. The statutory structure, the purpose of the requirement, the facts, any prejudice and any resulting injustice are material to that inquiry: R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49, A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 27 and R v Layden [2025] UKSC 12 applied.

2. The Soneji approach is not confined to procedural requirements. The questions stated by the House of Lords and Supreme Court concern non-compliance with statutory requirements in general, although the earlier cases arose in procedural settings.

3. The statutory scheme did not make a section 189A assessment a condition precedent to a suitability decision. Sections 189B, 190 and 195 expressly require regard to such an assessment, whereas section 210 and the suitability orders contain no corresponding cross-reference. Section 193B(6) also recognises that relevant circumstances and needs may exist outside the assessment.

4. The interim accommodation duty under section 188 may arise before any section 189A assessment, but the accommodation must still be suitable under section 206. Because the suitability test remains the same, Parliament cannot have intended the lawfulness of a suitability decision to change fundamentally as successive duties arise.

5. A suitability decision based on an unlawful section 189A assessment is itself legally flawed. That principle did not establish that an authority lacked power to make an independent and lawful suitability assessment where no section 189A assessment or personalised housing plan existed.

6. Treating compliance as a condition precedent would partially paralyse the authority’s statutory functions and could invalidate an otherwise impeccable offer providing immediate relief from homelessness. The appellant had received a legally sound suitability decision and had lost nothing of value through the omission. Lewison LJ gave the judgment; Warby and Jeremy Baker LJJ agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal and affirmed the county court’s conclusion that a section 189A assessment and personalised housing plan were not conditions precedent to a lawful suitability decision.
2. County Court at Central London: HHJ Saggerson dismissed the statutory appeal. He held that an absent or defective assessment could invalidate a suitability decision where it caused or materially contributed to an error, but did not automatically do so.