High Court finds local authority’s housing needs assessments of homeless applicant unlawful
In R (AN) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2025] EWHC 2265 (Admin), the High Court allowed a claim for judicial review challenging the local authority’s housing needs assessments, finding that they failed to comply with its duties under ss.189A of the Housing Act 1996, s.11 of the Children Act 2004 and s.149 of the Equality Act 2010. The High Court dismissed the Claimant’s ground challenging the lawfulness of the local authority’s placement policy in respect of B&B accommodation.
The claim was brought by a homeless single mother of a child with SEN. The Claimant alleged, under Ground 1, that the Defendant’s assessments of her housing needs were unlawful. Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, agreed. The Judge found that the Defendant’s assessments were unlawful as they contained no reasoned assessment or identification of the Claimant’s core housing needs to be provided local accommodation, and they failed to take into account and assess a serious of relevant considerations regarding the child’s education and disability-related needs, and the Claimant’s adult education.
The judgment is the latest in a growing body of case law clarifying and articulating local authorities’ important duty to assess homeless applicants housing needs under s.189A of the Housing Act 1996. It is the first judgment addressing the relationship between those duties and the public sector equality duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010
Under Ground 2, the Claimant had argued that the Defendant’s temporary accommodation placement policy was unlawful on the grounds it misrepresented the law and authorised, approved and/or induced breaches of the 2003 Homelessness Order. The nub of the issue was that the Placement Policy stated the local authority would endeavour to move families on from B&B accommodation within 6 weeks, whereas the 2003 Homelessness Order sets down a hard-edged obligation that families must not be placed in B&B accommodation for more than 6 weeks. The Judge accepted that it would be desirable if the Placement Policy’s wording was changed to reflect the mandatory nature of the 2003 Homelessness Order and that there was a risk that housing officers might infer from the policy that the 6-week limit was not an absolute requirement. However, the Judge found that the policy was not unlawful as inter alia it did not purport to be a comprehensive and precise exposition of the law and – in the round – promoted compliance with the 2003 Homelessness Order.
Joshua Jackson was instructed by Will Ford of Osbornes Law on behalf of the Claimant.
