BLZ, R (on the application of) v Leeds City Council

This judicial review concerned the approach a local authority must take under the Care Act 2014 when assessing care and support needs of a foreign national offender accommodated in Home Office Bail Accommodation (HOBA) and whether HOBA must be treated as "residual" and legally irrelevant. The court analysed the statutory sequence under the 2014 Act (needs assessment, eligibility, duty/power and action) and the role of reg.2 of the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015 and s.1 well-being factors. The court held that HOBA provided under Sch 10 §9 of the Immigration Act 2016 is "residual" and legally irrelevant to a local authority's duty to provide accommodation under the 2014 Act, but that the authority may lawfully take into account the claimant's current living arrangements at the Needs and Eligible-Needs stages. The senior social worker's Wood Assessment was found to be a lawful and reasonable exercise of evaluative judgment: it did not commit the Antoniak error (disregarding needs because they were currently met) and did not fail to identify accommodation-related eligible needs that would trigger a duty on Leeds City Council to provide accommodation. The claim was refused on all grounds.

This case concerned BLZ, a foreign national offender on Home Office Bail Accommodation transferred to Rokeby Gardens and later to a Hotel. The claimant sought judicial review of Leeds City Council's care and support assessments under the Care Act 2014, challenging (i) whether HOBA must be treated as "residual" and legally irrelevant when assessing eligible needs, (ii) whether the council misdirected itself by assessing "unmet" needs or relying on the existing accommodation, (iii) whether it misunderstood or failed to address what constitutes "eligible needs", "care and support" and "accommodation-related" needs, and (iv) whether the assessments were lawful and reasonable. Human Rights Act Article 3 and 8 claims were pleaded but were resolved in the linked SSHD judgment (BLZ No.1 [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin)), which found no violation; accordingly the Human Rights challenges against the council could not succeed.

Issues framed by the court included: (1) whether HOBA under Sch 10 §9 Immigration Act 2016 is residual; (2) correct legal approach and sequence under the 2014 Act (needs, eligibility, duty/power, action); (3) whether a need for accommodation is itself a 2014 Act care and support need; (4) the legal relevance of current accommodation at the Needs and Eligible-Needs stages; and (5) whether equipment/assistive technology which makes a home safe can in itself trigger a duty to provide accommodation.

The court reasoned that ordinary judicial review principles apply with an enhanced intensity of review given vulnerability and consequences. It adopted the five-stage statutory sequence from R (BG) v Suffolk County Council and confirmed reg.2(3) requires assessment of ability to achieve outcomes "without assistance". The court held that (a) a need for accommodation is not of itself a care and support need, but accommodation may be the necessary vehicle for effective delivery of eligible care and support; (b) current accommodation may be considered at the Needs and Eligible-Needs stages (the assessor need not posit homelessness); (c) asylum support accommodation has been treated as residual and legally irrelevant in earlier authorities and, on the court's analysis, HOBA under Sch 10 §9 is likewise designed to be residual and legally irrelevant to the local authority's duty to provide accommodation under the 2014 Act; (d) equipment or assistive technology needed to make a home safe does not of itself convert an equipment need into an accommodation duty; and (e) the Wood Assessment, read in context, reasonably concluded the claimant had no eligible care and support needs requiring the council to provide accommodation and recommended continued level-access accommodation and ongoing Telecare. The claim failed and the council's decisions were upheld.

The court refused the claimant's judicial review claim. It held that HOBA under Sch 10 §9 Immigration Act 2016 is "residual" and legally irrelevant to a local authority's duty under the Care Act 2014, but that a local authority may lawfully have regard to current accommodation at the Needs and Eligible-Needs stages. The Wood Assessment was lawful and reasonable and did not misdirect on "unmet" needs, eligible needs, or accommodation-related needs. Accordingly Leeds City Council's assessments stood and the claim was dismissed.