Deputy High Court judge orders London borough to provide accommodation pending completion of review of homelessness decision

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea acted unfairly in rejecting a request for accommodation by a man with mental health problems pending the outcome of his statutory review request of the defendant council's earlier decision that he was not homeless, the High Court has found.

Kirsty Brimelow KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, said Kensington & Chelsea had decided it was reasonable for the claimant to continue to occupy a property in Truro, Cornwall, where he felt unsafe, but should have continued to provide him with temporary accommodation.

The claimant applied for judicial review of the council’s decision to reject his application for accommodation pending the outcome of his statutory review request of its earlier decision under s184 of the Housing Act 1996 that he was not homeless as defined under s175 of the same Act.

The council had discretion to provide accommodation in such circumstances by s188(3) of the 1996 Act but declined to.

The claimant has serious physical and mental health conditions, uses a wheelchair and suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, the court heard.

In 2016 he became the tenant of a social housing property in Truro but from 2018 made housing applications at least twice to Kensington & Chelsea because he feared assault by his neighbours.

He described incidents including a neighbour drilling through his door while he was inside and being pulled out of his wheelchair outside.

Various other alleged assaults followed and the claimant also said police corruption and criminality in Truro meant he was “terrified” to pass the police station.

He was driven to London by an acquaintance in November 2022, and in March 2023, the council’s adult social care department completed a Care Act 2014 assessment which concluded he had eligible needs as a result of both mental and physical health conditions and risked deterioration if he was not linked with local services.

The council later concluded the claimant was not homeless under s175 of the 1996 Act as he had accommodation in Truro.

A review found "in the absence of any compelling evidence” the council’s decision should stand.

The claimant argued there had been inadequate inquiries, irrationality, failure to consider new information and a breach of the public sector equality duty.

He said Kensington & Chelsea’a decision was based predominantly on inquiries to the housing authority in Cornwall and it failed to make enquiries of the his solicitors. The council argued all this was considered in the review letter.

Ms Brimelow said in her judgment there had been “deficiencies of inquiries” including into the safety of the address in Truro, lack of consideration of the complaints of assault from the perspective of the claimant and lack of consideration of the Care Act assessment in the review letter.

There had also been a lack of inquiry as to the effect of not providing accommodation in light of his hospital admissions in June 2023 and the basis for the assertion that the claimant would receive the same care in Cornwall was unclear.

Ms Brimelow said: “The [council] does not seek assistance from [the claimant’s] solicitors to gain his view of the information from the social housing landlord in Truro and reasons for lack of police reports.

“This lack of inquiry means that the merits of the claimant's case are strong as the reliance on the Truro information has not been balanced.

“If it was balanced, the judgement itself is a fine balance. The complexities of [the claimant’s] mental and physical conditions are not reflected as having been considered, beyond their description, in the approach to the inquiries. Where there is analysis, there appears to be some questioning of the claimant’s dependence on a wheelchair; a questioning that is not supported by medical evidence or further inquiry.”

She said the council argued the claimant had an opportunity to explain inconsistencies but “telephoning him and having a note pushed under his door may well have been difficult for [the claimant] to cope with due to his mental health struggles”.

The judge said the balancing process had been unfair due to lack of inquiries and lack of reasoned consideration of new information and made a mandatory order requiring the council to continue to provide suitable accommodation to the claimant under s188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 pending the completion of the review of the earlier s184 decision.

Mark Smulian