Supreme Court declines to hear housing case over review process and curing of earlier deficiencies in needs assessment

The issue in Fatolahzadeh v Barnet LBC as set out by the Supreme Court was as follows: If a local authority makes a lawful offer of accommodation which it has assessed as suitable for an applicant threatened with homelessness, is that offer rendered unlawful by an earlier failure to carry out an adequate assessment of the applicant’s housing needs?

The background to the case – again as set out by the Supreme Court – is that under s195 of the Housing Act 1996, local authorities have a duty to take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation remains available for any applicant who is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance (“the prevention duty”).

S189A requires that an authority must assess a threatened homelessness case, and this assessment must cover the housing needs of an applicant and what support they may need (“the housing needs assessment”).

The local authority must have regard to this housing needs assessment when deciding which steps to take under s195.

The appellant had approached the London Borough of Barnet in July 2022 for homelessness assistance. She had been served with notice seeking possession of the property she had been living in with her adult son.

Following interviews, Barnet accepted that it owed the prevention duty to the appellant.

Barnet carried out various steps in September 2022 which it argued amounted to a s189A compliant housing needs assessment.

In March 2023, Barnet offered the appellant housing which it considered suitable for the appellant and her son’s needs.

The appellant accepted the offer and moved into the property. Notwithstanding her acceptance, she was entitled to request a review by Barnet of the suitability of the property under s202 of the 1996 Act.

She requested such a review, submitting to Barnet that the property was not suitable for her and her son because it was far away from their support network and because her son’s medical conditions were impacted by the property’s noisy location.

In August 2023, in response to the request for review, Barnet concluded that the accommodation was suitable for the appellant and her son and gave reasons for this decision (“the review decision”).

The appellant appealed against the review decision to the Central London County Court.

She did not challenge the substance of the review decision. She argued that the review decision was invalidated by the earlier failure to carry out a s189A compliant housing needs assessment.

His Honour Judge Hellman in the County Court at Central London dismissed her appeal against the review decision, finding that it considered the suitability of the property in detail against the appellant’s housing needs and was entitled to conclude that it was suitable for the appellant and her son.

The judge held that the finding of suitability in the review decision mitigated any earlier deficiency. The offer of accommodation was not invalidated by any earlier failure to carry out an adequate housing needs assessment.

The appellant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.

She then lodged an application with the Supreme Court for permission to appeal.

A Supreme Court panel comprising Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen and Lord Doherty refused permission on 23 March 2026, finding that the application “does not raise an arguable point of law”.

See also: Suitability of accommodation offered in performance of the prevention duty –Genevieve Screeche-Powell analyses the Court of Appeal’s ruling [September 2025].