Homeless single mother wins High Court battle against London borough

A High Court judge has allowed a homeless single mother’s claim for judicial review against the London Borough of Redbridge on all four grounds.

In UO v London Borough of Redbridge [2023] EWHC 1355 (Admin), Mr Justice Lane said that the claimant was a mother of three children, aged 11, 5 and 3.

“The claimant and her family have been accommodated in a number of different hotels, without cooking or washing facilities, in several instances a significant distance from the school in Tottenham, which the children are attending”, said the High Court judge.

The council had offered the claimant self-contained accommodation in Peterborough, however she contended that it was unsuitable.

The claimant came to the UK in 2015 on a visa to join her then partner. The relationship ended in 2016 and the claimant moved into a rented flat. Her visa expired in 2017, which meant she had to stop working and could no longer afford to pay rent.

The mother made an application for asylum in 2019.

Mr Justice Lane noted that as a result of being granted refugee status on 12 July 2022, the claimant was no longer entitled to support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Instead, she became entitled to assistance from the council under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act").

On 7 October 2022, the claimant received a letter informing her that she would have to leave her National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation by 8 November 2022.

She notified Redbridge of this by email on 18 October 2022. The council sent her a link to complete a homelessness application.

After following up with the council after receiving no information, On 7 November 2022, the claimant was sent an email with a letter attached. The letter acknowledged that the claimant was homeless and eligible for assistance, accepting the "Relief Duty" under section 189B(2) of the 1996 Act, and enclosing the Relief Assessment and Personalised Plan ("RAPP").

On 8 November 2022, the council provided the family with hotel accommodation.

Mr Justice Lane said: “The defendant continued to move the claimant and her family between different hotels. At the time of the first day of the hearing of the judicial review, on 28 March 2023, the family had been relocated on eight occasions over some four months.

“The hotels have all been between 1 - 2.5 hours from the children's school in Tottenham by public transport and have lacked cooking or laundry facilities.”

He added: “The claimant's evidence is that moving between hotel accommodation at short notice has taken a toll on the family. The claimant suffers from acute headaches due to the stress, for which she has been prescribed painkillers by her GP.

“The headteacher from the children's school reports that she has noticed a drop in their moods, and LO (the eldest child) has been referred for counselling. The headteacher also believes that LO's scholarship applications were negatively impacted due to not having the space in the hotel room in which to study.”

On 21 December 2022, the council offered the claimant accommodation in a three-bedroom property in Peterborough. The High Court judge noted this offer was not accepted by the claimant as it would require her children to move school, particularly given LO’s upcoming SATs exams and (at that time) applications for secondary school.

The council carried out a "Suitability Assessment" with respect to the Peterborough accommodation on 22 December 2022. The Suitability Assessment noted that the "Property is not in reasonable distance of the current school" but stated "it is reasonable to change schools as children are not in critical schooling age".

The claimant was given two further offers of accommodation in Peterborough, which she did not accept “on the basis that she considers it would cause a disruption to her children's education”, the judge said.

On 16 March 2023, the council wrote to the claimant to tell her that it considered that, pursuant to section 193(5) of the 1996 Act, its duty had been discharged by the latest offer of accommodation in Peterborough. The letter lastly told the claimant to take immediate steps to secure her own accommodation.

Outlining the grounds of claim, Mr Justice Lane said:

• Ground 1 contends that the defendant's housing need assessment [HNA] and personalised housing plan (PHP) were unlawful. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps of enquiry to identify or assess the claimant's needs. The Relief Assessment and Personalised Plan (RAPP) was inadequately evidenced and reasoned to demonstrate that the defendant had regard to the disruption to the claimant and her children's education. Consequently, the PHP was unlawful, not being informed by a proper assessment of need. Finally under this ground, the defendant did not take any steps to agree or consult with the claimant on the PHP. Nor did the defendant record any agreement or lack thereof.
• Ground 2 asserts that there has been a failure to conduct a lawful review of the housing needs assessment and personalised housing plan. The defendant was made aware of additional information, before the commencement of the judicial review, but failed to initiate any adequate review. Furthermore, no reviews were carried out with respect to any of the hotel accommodation offers. The defendant failed to review the claimant's housing needs or the suitability of subsequent offers of hotel and accommodation in Peterborough, despite the evidence provided with the judicial review claim.
• Ground 3 contends that the defendant's decisions with respect to the hotels and the accommodation in Peterborough were unlawful and/or that there is an ongoing failure to provide the claimant with suitable accommodation. The hotel accommodation was excessively far from the children's school and had no cooking or washing facilities. The Peterborough accommodation was unsuitable on account of its location. It is, the claimant contends, no answer that there is a general housing shortage, in circumstances where the defendant has failed to provide evidence regarding the availability of self-contained accommodation closer to the school, and why it could not be offered to the claimant and her family.

Mr Justice Lane added that the claimant sought to add a fourth ground, which he dealt with on a "rolled up" basis. It was said to arise from ground 3 and contended that the purported termination under section 193 of the 1996 Act was unlawful as the Peterborough accommodation was not suitable: Boreh v LB Ealing [2009] PTSR 52.”

Considering ground one, Mr Justice Lane noted that before a hearing on 28 March, the defendant relocated the claimant and her family to five different hotels within a seven-week period.

Turning to “school factors” the High Court judge outlined the council’s policy:

"the Council acknowledges that it is usually in the best interests of children at any stage of their education to have stability and often to remain in the same school. Disruption in this respect can have a detrimental impact on their social and educational development. As far as possible the council seeks to keep families close enough for their children to remain at the same school and can offer support in accessing private sector accommodation to do so.

However, at present it is not possible to offer accommodation to all families which will be within reasonable travelling distance of their current schools. For this reason the council has chosen to prioritise families with particular educational needs so that those who are likely to be most affected by having to move to a new school are protected. There is no set criteria for who will be prioritised on this basis but particular consideration will be given to children at critical points in education, such as GCSE and A levels, those with Special Educational Needs and those with other pressing social circumstances that will be particularly affected by disruption."

Mr Justice Lane noted that the council had pointed out that LO, the eldest child, “does not fall within those provisions”. However, he said: “I find that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps of inquiry in order to identify or assess the claimant's potential housing needs and determine what accommodation would be suitable for her household, as required by sections 188 and 189A.

"Whilst I accept there is no discrete legal obligation to follow the provisions of the Code [the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities 2018], the purpose of the Code is to encourage practices which, if followed, should ensure that a local authority does not breach its statutory housing obligations.”

The High Court judge found that the council’s interactions with the claimant in November 2022 were “entirely inadequate”. He said: “The defendant made no inquiries with the school in Tottenham regarding the children's educational needs and the potential disruption to their education of either having to commute very long distances or to change school during the academic year.”

He also found that the council has “failed to adduce any evidence to show that it made any enquiries regarding the availability of accommodation nearer to the school or, indeed, alternatives to B&B accommodation, as required by the Homelessness Orders 2003 and 2012 and as dictated by the defendant's own Policy.”

Mr Justice Lane added: “I also find that the defendant has failed lawfully to identify or assess the housing needs of the claimant and her children, as required by section 189A(2)(b) of the 1996 Act, read with section 11 of the 2004 Act.

“All this meant that the RAPP did not lawfully consider "what accommodation would be suitable" for the claimant within the meaning of section 189A(2)(b). This, in turn, leads inexorably to the further conclusion that the RAPP was inadequately evidenced and reasoned. Finally, it is manifest that the defendant did not take any steps to agree or consult with the claimant on the PHP; nor that it recorded any agreement or lack thereof in that document”.

Turning to ground two, the High Court judge said that the receipt of information from the children’s headteacher, together with emails from Ms Rix (the claimant's support worker) on 10, 15 and 18 November 2022, and the pre-action correspondence from the claimant's solicitors, “clearly ought to have caused the defendant to initiate a review of the HNA and the PHP. This is a further instance of unlawfulness”.

Concluding on ground two, he said: “After issue of the judicial review, notwithstanding the evidence provided by the claimant in connection with her claim, the defendant failed to carry out a lawful review of the claimant's housing needs or the suitability of subsequent offers of a hotel and Peterborough accommodation.”

Mr Justice Lane added: “So far as it concerns the subsequent offers of accommodation in Peterborough, there was, again no proper engagement with the issues, merely broad statements that the defendant believed the offered accommodation to be suitable accommodation for the claimant.”

Turning to ground three, the High Court judge noted that the claimant has “a statutory right to seek a review of suitability decisions made under section 202 of the 1996 Act”.

He said: “The defendant submits that the review process, which lies to the County Court, constitutes a suitable alternative remedy and that, for this reason, ground 3 (and the related ground 4) should be dismissed.”

However, he said: “I am in no doubt that, in the particular circumstances of this case, I should not treat the availability of a statutory review under section 202 and/or an appeal to the County Court under section 204 of the 1996 Act as requiring grounds 3 and 4 to be dismissed or as justifying withholding any remedy in respect of the unlawfulness of the defendant's suitability decisions.”

Concluding on ground three, the judge said: “The hotel accommodation could not rationally be regarded as suitable. This is particularly so, given the impact upon the children of having to travel, in many cases, excessive distances to attend school; having nowhere that the claimant could prepare meals for them and therefore having to subsist on fast food outlets.”

“[…] Since the defendant has failed to show that it undertook any (let alone legally sufficient) inquiries, the defendant simply cannot rely on the general premise (which I accept) is that there is an acute housing shortage in London.

“If there were no such self-contained accommodation within the relevant area, the defendant has failed to show that hotel accommodation could not have been sourced much closer to the school than the hotel accommodation actually provided, or the Peterborough accommodation. There is no evidence that the defendant considered these alternatives.”

Finally, considering ground four, the High Court judge said: “It follows from my findings on ground 3 that the offer of the Peterborough accommodation, which underpinned the defendant's decision to terminate the accommodation duty was not lawful.”

Mr Justice Lane concluded that the judicial review succeeded on all four grounds.

Cloisters Chambers, whose Josh Jackson appeared for the claimant, said the family has now been provided with self-contained accommodation within the borough.

Lottie Winson