High Court judge criticises “very serious defects” in housing decision letter

A decision letter sent by the London Borough of Hillingdon to an applicant for housing “suffers from very serious defects”, Nicklin J has said in the High Court.

He was dealing with a judicial review brought by local resident J and her eight-year-old son L.

L has a range of disabilities including autism, global development delay, ataxia and uncontrolled epilepsy.

The family live in a privately rented bungalow where L's wheelchair does not fit through the doors and there are dampness and mould problems.

It is near Heathrow on land due for redevelopment and the landlord has said he will require possession once his land has been sold.

Their bungalow is also close to busy roads and L has no sense of danger, requiring continual supervision when outdoors.

J applied to Hillingdon for housing and after a series of assessments and appeals the council’s decision letter said: “You have been assessed as having no identified medical or housing need. This means you have not been awarded medical banding and you have not been registered for social housing.”

The letter went on to say that noise and traffic was inevitable in an urban area near Heathrow and “maintaining any child's safety on a road remains a normal parenting role” and suggested the use of a bath board for showering L.

In J and L, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon [2017] EWHC 3411 (Admin) Nicklin J said: “I have reached the very clear conclusion that the decision letter suffers from very serious defects.

“The decision-maker has relied – word for word – on the medical assessment without apparently recognising that it was no part of the doctor's job to assess the scope of the parental role and its effectiveness of mitigating the risks to L or to make recommendations as to L's bathing (which failed to address the risk to L at all).”

Based on that, the decision-maker concluded "the current accommodation is suitable on specific medical grounds” without reference to other assessments including by occupational therapists.

The judge added: “The decision letter so comprehensively fails to grasp the nature of the risks to L identified in the C&F Assessment and the proposal of how those risks were to be addressed that it is impossible to conclude that there had been any discussion of the C&F Assessment, still less co-operation, with the social services department.”

He said that insofar as the decision letter was relied upon by Hillingdon as demonstrating compliance with its duty to actively promote L’s welfare “it fails completely”.

The judge said he would invite submissions on the appropriate form of an order.

Mark Smulian