Judge overrules council's definition of suitable accommodation

The Central London County Court has overturned a decision by the London Borough of Hounslow on the suitability of accommodation offered to a family with a disabled son.

HHJ Saggerson said in his judgment that if the review officer were to have proper regard to all of the relevant factors “there is no real prospect that a fresh review decision could conclude other than that the accommodation is unsuitable”.

Hilal Haji Mohamed brought an appeal under s.204 Housing Act 1996 against Hounslow’s decision that temporary accommodation provided to her under s.193 of the Act was suitable for her family.

Ms Mohamed is a single mother with four children. Three are adults but 13-year-old Zubair has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, severe learning difficulties, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and a generalised seizure disorder. He has severe challenging behaviour and is non-verbal.

An occupational therapist report assessed Zubair’s housing needs and recommended any future offer of accommodation should provide five bedrooms, be on the ground floor due to the risk of Zubair exiting the property through a window, have a garden, hard floors, locked windows and nearby parking to reduce the risk of Zubair absconding.

In June 2024, Hounslow offered the family a property with four bedrooms, which was accepted subject to a review of its suitability, which subsequently became disputed.

Ms Mohamed brought the judicial review on the basis that in five specified respects the review officer’s decision that it was suitable was based on potential improvements or adjustments that were not “certain, binding and enforceable” and so the decision was irrational.

She further argued that the accommodation posed risks to Zubair and that there were breaches of the Children Act 2004 and the Public Sector Equality Duty as part of the rationality assessment.

Hounslow argued that no accommodation could be regarded as safe for Zubair as he will always present a risk to himself and others wherever he is accommodated and that the review officer was entitled to consider suitability on the assumption that Zubair would always be supervised.

Hounslow noted duties arising from the Children Act 2024 and the Public Sector Equality Duty did not require a particular result, but rather duties to have due regard to achieve the goals identified.

HHJ Saggerson said: “I also take judicial notice of the fact that, for [Hounslow], the housing challenges presented by the appellant and Zubair must seem, subjectively, to be almost insurmountable.

“Given the resources likely to be available to the [council] and the many calls on those scarce resources, finding a four or five bedroomed bungalow or ground floor flat within the borough is likely to be a daunting task.

“However, in my judgment the review officer’s decision was legally flawed and irrational…”

He said Hounslow’s approach had three flaws. The first was that the occupational therapist said there was a significant risk to Zubair's safety and well-being with stairs (including jumping from upper floors or falling) notwithstanding the care and supervision regime in place.

“No account has been taken of Zubair’s night wanderings,” the judge said.”The enhanced supervision provided by the appellant (and intermittently others) does not counteract the risks posed by the stairs. Zubair is 13 years old, not 13 months.”

The second was that any adaptations or alterations were not subject to “certain, binding and enforceable” proposals and there were no specific proposals for the stairs.

Thirdly, the review officer has not had sufficient regard to safeguarding or promoting the welfare and best interests of Zubair.

He said the review officer concentrated only on the risk of Zubair absconding from the garden but “does not deal with the occupational therapist’s observation concerning the risk of injury from Zubair throwing handfuls of gravel at the accommodation and over the fence onto a busy thoroughfare or putting gravel in his mouth (similar to the risk posed with rodent faeces and poison) or the risk of injury to himself and others this presents.

“The notion that these problems can be eradicated or minimised by using playmats with constant supervision is, in my judgment, illogical and unrealistic. Neither safeguard will stop or minimise the risk of such behaviour.

The judge concluded: “If the review officer were to have proper regard to all of the relevant factors there is no real prospect that a fresh review decision could conclude other than that the accommodation is unsuitable. Accordingly, I vary the review decision to state that the accommodation is unsuitable.”

Mark Smulian