AN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

A housing-needs assessment under Housing Act 1996, section 189A, must identify and assess an applicant’s key accommodation needs. Recording facts or wishes is insufficient. Where a child has disabilities, the authority must assess the nature and consequences of those needs, including the effect of location and travel on education and welfare.

The assessment must clearly distinguish needs from desirable preferences and explain whether accommodation must be local, and any relevant distance or travel-time limits. A policy challenge succeeds only where the policy authorises, approves, or induces unlawful conduct, or purports to give a materially misleading account of the law. A mere risk of misunderstanding is insufficient.

The claimant, a homeless mother, lived with her seven-year-old daughter, who had autism, special educational needs and an education, health and care plan. The claimant challenged the defendant local authority’s housing-needs assessments and personalised housing plans, alleging breaches of section 189A of the Housing Act 1996, section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 and the public sector equality duty.

She also challenged the authority’s temporary-accommodation placement policy, arguing that it unlawfully permitted families with children to remain in bed and breakfast accommodation beyond six weeks under the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003. The central issues were whether the assessments adequately identified the family’s needs and whether the policy authorised or induced unlawful placements.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The December, February, March and May Plans did not constitute lawful housing-needs assessments or reviews. They recorded background facts and the claimant’s wish to remain near her daughter’s school, but did not assess whether accommodation had to be within the borough, or how close it needed to be to the school.
2. The authority had made sufficient inquiries. It knew of the child’s autism, EHCP, educational support and travel difficulties, and had contacted the school. The failure was to take proper account of the information obtained, rather than to investigate insufficiently.
3. The Suitability Assessment could be read with the February Plan and later documents, but it did not cure the defects. A housing-needs assessment may comprise several documents, yet those documents must collectively provide a reasoned assessment of the statutory matters. The authority had to distinguish assessed needs from wishes or preferences.
4. The same defects breached section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004. The authority failed to assess the nature and consequences of the child’s disability and its implications for suitable accommodation. The public sector equality duty was also breached because there was no sharp focus on the disadvantages and needs arising from the child’s disability.
5. Ground 2 failed. Articles 3 and 4 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 imposed an effective six-week limit on B&B accommodation for applicants with family commitments. However, the Placement Policy did not state that longer placements were lawful, did not purport to be a comprehensive statement of the law, and promoted rather than induced compliance. The policy was therefore not unlawful under the principles in R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
6. The court granted a declaration that the authority had failed to comply with section 189A(2) of the Housing Act 1996, section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 and section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It made a mandatory order requiring an updated assessment and written plan by 5 pm on 1 October 2025. The claimant received 70% of her costs.