MKM, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Ealing

A lawful homelessness assessment must identify and evaluate an applicant’s key housing needs, including any location-based need arising from vulnerability, support networks or risks of re-trafficking. Recording a preference or wish is not an assessment of need. The assessment need not be elaborate, but it must address the statutory matters and remain under review.

An accommodation offer is unlawful where it is materially based on a defective assessment. Judicial review may remain appropriate where the statutory review route does not cover an interim accommodation decision or the assessment itself. A declaration may suffice for an assessment or reviewable offer, while an unlawful interim offer may require quashing and a mandatory order.

The claimant, a refugee and survivor of trafficking, sought homelessness assistance from the defendant under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. She relied on her established London support network, psychological vulnerability and fear of re-trafficking.

The defendant assessed her housing needs, offered accommodation in Durham under the relief duty in section 189B, and made the same accommodation available as interim accommodation under section 188. The claimant challenged all three decisions by judicial review. The central issues were whether the assessment lawfully addressed her housing needs, whether the offers were thereby unlawful, and whether judicial review should be refused because statutory review and appeal remedies were available for the relief-stage offer.

1. Alternative remedy. A review under section 202 followed by an appeal under section 204 was ordinarily the appropriate route for challenging the suitability of a final relief-stage offer. It did not justify barring this claim. Judicial review was the only direct means of challenging the section 188 decision, the section 189A assessment was not itself reviewable under section 202, interim relief was available only through judicial review, and it was undesirable to terminate a fully argued claim at a late stage.
2. Housing needs assessment. Adopting the principles summarised in AN, section 189A required reasonable enquiry and an assessment of the applicant’s key accommodation needs. Needs were distinct from wishes. The claimant’s circumstances triggered an obligation to assess whether she had a location-based need, including a need to remain in London or within a reasonable distance of her support network. The HNA merely recorded that she did not want to leave London and advised her to widen her search. It did not assess that need and was unlawful.
3. Relief-stage offer. The section 189B offer was unlawful because it was based on the defective HNA, applying the “based on” approach in Norton.
4. Interim offer. The section 188 offer was unlawful because it too was based on the defective HNA. Independently, the defendant had failed rationally to consider access to adequate trafficking support in Durham and the consequences of interrupting the claimant’s existing support.
5. Relief. The court declared the section 189A assessment and section 189B offer unlawful. It quashed the section 188 interim offer, declared that the claimant had been accommodated under section 188(1) at her current address since 1 October 2025, and ordered the defendant to restate that position clearly in writing.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The claim was issued on 7 August 2025 and permission was granted on the papers on 21 August 2025. The substantive claim was determined by the High Court. Permission to appeal was subsequently refused.