AA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest

Judicial review is available to challenge a housing needs assessment or personal housing plan under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 before an accommodation offer is made. The review and appeal provisions in sections 202 and 204 do not provide a suitable alternative remedy for such a challenge.

A local housing authority must make reasonable inquiries where the suitability of private rented accommodation is an obvious matter requiring investigation. A personal housing plan may include steps supporting an applicant’s allocation of social housing under Part 6, because such allocation may discharge the authority’s Part 7 housing duty.

The claimant, a refugee with significant mental-health and support needs, challenged the defendant council’s August 2024 housing needs assessment and personal housing plan. She alleged that the council had failed to consider evidence concerning the unsuitability of private rented accommodation, failed to make sufficient inquiries, and unlawfully excluded steps supporting an application for social housing.

The council argued that the statutory review and county-court appeal procedures in sections 202 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996 were a suitable alternative remedy once a private rented sector offer was made. The court considered that macro issue and the three micro issues.

1. Alternative remedy. The claim was properly brought by judicial review. Sections 202 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996 expressly identify the decisions subject to review and appeal and do not refer to a section 189A assessment or personal housing plan. In the absence of an accommodation offer, the proposed statutory remedy might never become available. It therefore could not constitute a suitable alternative remedy in this case (paras [31]-[42]).
2. Consideration of the SHP email. The decision-maker had regard to the 5 June 2024 email but rationally gave it limited weight. The email was a bald statement and did not provide substantial evidence explaining why private rented accommodation would be unsuitable. The challenge on this ground failed (paras [47]-[53]).
3. Duty of inquiry. The suitability of private rented accommodation was an obvious matter requiring further inquiry. The decision-maker sought further information from SHP and received a response addressing the relevant concerns. The inquiries were reasonable and the Tameside duty was discharged. The challenge on this ground failed (paras [54]-[61]).
4. Steps concerning social housing. Although social-housing allocation falls under Part 6, allocation of suitable accommodation can bring the Part 7 housing duty to an end. It was therefore unreasonable to exclude from the PHP steps supporting the claimant’s application for social housing, alongside steps concerning private rented accommodation. A fresh PHP was required under section 189A(6) (paras [62]-[71]).
5. The claimant was the successful party overall. The defendant was ordered to pay £10,000 plus VAT on account of costs within 21 days (paras [73]-[82]).

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted on 4 March 2025 by David Pittaway KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court. The claim was determined by the Administrative Court on 3 July 2025.