Glasgow City Council v X (Scotland)

A Scottish local authority performing its interim homelessness duty must consider all relevant accommodation needs of the applicant and every member of the household. Those needs include general, special, medical, physical and disability-related needs.

The duty to take needs into account is a process duty. It does not require every need to be met. This differs from the more demanding duty governing permanent accommodation. Interim accommodation must satisfy the express minimum requirements of the statutory scheme, while the authority’s assessment of its suitability remains subject to rationality review. Accommodation suitable for a short period may become unsuitable as time passes.

The appellant’s household included a son with autism and additional support needs. Glasgow City Council assessed the household as requiring a five-apartment property for permanent accommodation but provided a four-apartment property under its interim homelessness duty.

The Lord Ordinary allowed the appellant’s petition for judicial review: [2022] CSOH 35; 2022 SLT 554. The Inner House reversed that decision: [2023] CSIH 7; 2023 SC 153.

The issue was whether section 29(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and article 4(b) of the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014 require interim accommodation to meet every need of the applicant and household, or merely require those needs to be considered when suitability is assessed.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lady Simler, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Sales and Lord Hamblen agreed, held that the council lawfully discharged its interim duty under section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

2. The phrase “needs of the household” in article 4(b) of the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014 includes all relevant accommodation needs of the applicant and each household member. It encompasses general, special, particular, medical and disability-related needs. Any understanding of the Inner House judgment which excluded special or individual needs was wrong.

3. The legislation nevertheless distinguishes between taking needs into account and meeting them. Article 4(b) imposes a process duty at the interim stage: every relevant need must be considered when suitability is assessed, but every need need not be satisfied. By contrast, sections 31 and 32(5) impose a more demanding, outcome-driven duty in relation to permanent accommodation, which must meet special needs. Treating the duties as co-extensive would deprive the different statutory language and stages of substantive effect.

4. The wider scheme confirms that distinction. Articles 4(a) and 4(c), and applicable requirements in article 5, identify requirements which must be met. Other accommodation needs fall within article 4(b) and must be considered. This construction produces a coherent and workable scheme, including where article 6 disapplies article 5 requirements in specified circumstances.

5. The statutory language was clear. The Policy Note and non-statutory guidance could not determine its meaning and, in any event, did not support the appellant’s construction. The guidance itself required authorities to take account of each household member’s needs.

6. The authority’s assessment remains subject to judicial review on rationality grounds. It must consider every relevant matter and reach a decision within the range of reasonable decisions. Accommodation may be suitable for a short interim period but become unsuitable with the passage of time.

7. The council considered the household’s size, the son’s need for his own room, the occupational therapist’s recommendation and the scarcity of larger properties. Temporary use of the living room as sleeping accommodation enabled the son to have his own room while retaining use of a living room by day. The conclusion that the four-apartment property was not unsuitable was rational and lawful.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Inner House’s disposal was upheld: [2025] UKSC 13.
2. Inner House of the Court of Session: The Second Division allowed the council’s appeal and reversed the Lord Ordinary, holding that interim suitability could be established although special needs were not met in every respect, provided the household’s needs were considered and the authority acted reasonably: [2023] CSIH 7; 2023 SC 153.
3. Outer House of the Court of Session: The Lord Ordinary allowed the petition for judicial review, holding that the council had an absolute duty to provide temporary accommodation meeting the son’s additional support needs: [2022] CSOH 35; 2022 SLT 554.