High Court rejects judicial review over adequacy of accommodation, policy on permitting animals

A vulnerable man and woman who needed to be housed with their dog have lost a case in the High Court, with a deputy judge telling them judicial review had been an inappropriate route for much of the case.

AB & CD had left ‘Town X’ after their flat was taken over by drug dealers in a ‘cuckooing’ operation that led to them being threatened with violence.

They later arrived in London and slept rough before being accepted as homeless by Westminster City Council.

Both suffer from a number of conditions causing serious physical and mental disabilities and rely on their dog for emotional support, the court heard.

The judge, Dan Squires KC, said the case concerned the adequacy of the accommodation provided, which was in a Travelodge in an unidentified ‘Town Y’, and the fairness of Westminster’s policy on accommodating animals.

Their first ground was that Westminster had breached the Housing Act 1996 duty to provide suitable accommodation.

Westminster accepted that the duty was breached between August and  October 2023, and Judge Squires said he would hear from the parties on whether any relief was appropriate.

He said he now had to decide whether Westminster was irrational in concluding that the Town Y Travelodge was suitable accommodation. This process was, though, hampered by the way the case was pleaded.

The judge said Westminster gave no indication that it considered the Town Y Travelodge suitable until December 2023 but once this happened “in my view some form of amendment to the claimants' pleadings was required.

“This is not a situation, as sometimes occurs, where there have been some minor developments due to the passage of time, and which could be dealt with by way of updating evidence, but where the core issue in dispute remains the same.

“A case about accommodation A (which both parties accept is unsuitable) is quite different to a case about accommodation B (which the local authority considers is suitable, but the claimant does not). It requires amended pleadings.”

The claimants therefore had to plead “precisely why they considered the Travelodge to be unsuitable, and why it was irrational for the defendant to reach a different view.

“The difficulty of proceeding without such pleadings is that the defendant and the court do not know what aspect of the accommodation is regarded as unsuitable and on what basis.”

This meant Judge Squires had “virtually no evidence before me from which I could properly assess the suitability of the Town Y Travelodge”.

He added: “In circumstances in which the claimants' pleadings have not challenged the defendant's assessment of the suitability of the Town Y Travelodge, I therefore do not consider the issue is properly before me and I am not prepared to find the defendant's conclusion on suitability to be irrational.”

Judge Squires said it was questionable whether judicial review was the correct mechanism in this case as a better remedy would be to seek an internal review of Westminster’s decision, and, if that was unsuccessful, to appeal to the County Court under the Housing Act 1996 sections 202 and 204.

He explained: “Judicial review remedies are, however, discretionary. Where there is an alternative remedy for a dispute which is more suitable, and in particular one prescribed by Parliament, it will generally be inappropriate to proceed to determine the matter by way of judicial review.”

Judge Squires also rejected the claim that it was discriminatory for Westminster to have a policy of not accommodating animals without evidence of medical need, which in this case was provided.

He said: “The claimants submitted that requiring evidence of medical need to be housed with an animal is inconsistent with the [Homelessness Code of Conduct for Local Authorities] as it does not show the required 'careful consideration'.

“I do not consider that to be a good argument. I do not consider the requirement for evidence of medical need is inconsistent with giving 'careful consideration' of why pets are ‘important’ to some applicants. Indeed, it might be thought to be a way of according such consideration by prioritising the most in need.”

It was reasonable for Westminster not to maintain a stock of accommodation suitable for animals but simply to procure such places as needed, he said, adding that it had not breached the public sector equality duty.

Mark Smulian