London borough decision to place homeless mother of seven in rural Essex village on interim basis unlawful, High Court rules

A decision by the London Borough of Lambeth to move a London mother responsible for the care of seven children to interim accommodation in a rural village in Essex has been deemed unlawful by the High Court.

In YR, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 2813, Paul Bowen KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, found the council's housing needs assessment and personalised housing plan, which he acknowledged resulted in "significant impact and disruption" to her and the children, were in breach of the Housing Act 1996 and the Children Act 2004.

The claimant was a single mother who presented to the council as homeless in January of this year. She is responsible for the care of seven children aged between 4 months and 16 years.

After approaching the council, the Dominican-born Spanish national was temporarily placed in a two-bedroom flat in Lambeth.

Six of her children soon after enrolled in local schools, with five being enrolled as early as February and March.

Solicitors for the claimant later wrote to the council to request a three to four-bedroom property in the borough, given the small size of her temporary accommodation. In addition, they asked for a home within reasonable proximity of the children's schools and employment opportunities.

A formal application for homelessness assistance under s 183 of the 1996 Act was then submitted to the council in July 2022, together with a request for interim accommodation under s 188(1) of the 1996 Act.

A council housing adviser interviewed the claimant in August in connection with her housing application before completing a 'Relief Assessment and Personalised Plan' (RAPP), which purported to discharge the council's duty to conduct a housing needs assessment and prepare a personalised housing plan under s 189A of the 1996 Act.

The next day, the council offered the claimant a four-bedroom property around 30 miles away in a rural Essex village.

The offer was accompanied by the RAPP and a cover letter detailing the council's reasoning for the placement.

The claimant went on to seek a judicial review complaining that the RAPP and cover letter did not contain any reference to, or any assessment of, the welfare needs of her children - in particular, how their education would be disrupted by an out-of-area move to Essex or the availability of school placements in the area.

She also complained the correspondence lacked reference to Lambeth's 'Housing' Placements Policy' or any consideration of whether she fell within a group for priority accommodation in the area of Lambeth by virtue of the fact the eldest child was due to start Year 11.

According to the claimant, Lambeth also failed to identify her support networks or the difficulty she would have in maintaining those networks and finding employment if she left the borough.

Finally, she complained about a finding by the council that it was her "wish" to be housed in Lambeth rather than her "need".

She made the following three successful grounds of challenge:

1. The council (i) failed to carry out a lawful assessment of her and her family's housing needs and/or (ii) to prepare a lawful personalised housing plan under s 189A(1) of the 1996 Act; and/or (iii) failed to conduct a lawful review of her housing needs under s 189A(9)-(11).
2. The council failed, in the discharge of its housing functions, to "have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare" of her children as required by s 11(2) Children Act 2004.
3. The council was in breach of its continuing duty under s 188(1), taken with s 206 and s 208, to provide "suitable" accommodation that "so far as reasonably practicable" is in the Lambeth area, in that: (i) the decision was based on an unlawful s 189A assessment and review; (ii) the authority unlawfully failed to apply its own Placements Policy that an applicant with a child entering Year 11 will be afforded priority accommodation within the Lambeth area; (iii) the decision that the property is 'suitable' for the purposes of s 206, 208 and the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) (Order) 2012 (the 'Homelessness Order') was irrational.

The judge's conclusions were as follows:

1. Both the initial housing needs assessment and the personal housing plan were unlawful for the purposes of s 189A of the 1996 Act, read in the light of s 11(2) Children Act 1989, and the council failed lawfully to pursue the inquiries required under s 184 and s 188(1).
2. The council failed to conduct a lawful review of the claimant's housing needs as required by s 189A(9) and paragraph 17.8 of the Code of Guidance. In particular, the Suitability Assessment of 12 September 2022 did not satisfy that duty.
3. The council's decision that the property was 'suitable accommodation' for the purposes of s 188(1) was vitiated by the fact that it was based on an unlawful assessment under s 189A and lack of proper inquiries for the purposes of s 184 and 188(1), and an unlawful review.
4. The council's decision that the property was "suitable accommodation" under s 188(1) was also unlawful because the authority unlawfully failed to apply its Placements Policy to the claimant's circumstances.
5. The council also acted irrationally in concluding that the property was 'suitable accommodation' for the purposes of s 188(1), taken with s 206 and s 208 and read in the light of s 11(2) Children Act 1989.

Following this, the council and claimant both agreed declarations be made that the initial housing needs assessment and the personalised housing plan were unlawful, the council failed to conduct a lawful review of the claimant's needs, and steps in the personalised housing plan were in breach of s 189A(9) of the Housing Act 1996.

They agreed the council's decision that the Essex property was suitable accommodation for the purposes of s 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996, taken with s 206 and s 208, was unlawful.

The parties also agreed that a quashing order should be made in relation to the s 188(1) decision. The judge made the orders.

Adam Carey