Key Facts
- •Mr. Saint Sepulchre, a 51-year-old with serious physical and mental health conditions (including paranoid schizophrenia and uses a wheelchair), applied for accommodation from the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.
- •His application was rejected based on his existing tenancy in Truro, despite allegations of assaults by neighbours and concerns about his safety.
- •A statutory review was requested, and interim relief granting accommodation was provided.
- •The council's decision was reviewed in light of a Care Act assessment showing eligible needs due to his mental and physical health.
- •The court granted permission for judicial review.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a discretion to provide interim accommodation under s188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 pending a review of a homelessness decision.
Housing Act 1996, s188(3)
In exercising this discretion, authorities must balance fairness between homeless applicants against the possibility that the applicant might be right. This requires considering the merits of the case, new material, and the applicant's personal circumstances and consequences.
R v Camden LBC ex parte Mohammed (1998) 30 HLR 315 (Admin)
Authorities must have 'due regard' to the need to take steps to meet the needs of a disabled person under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).
Equality Act 2010, s149
Local authorities have a duty to make appropriate inquiries in a caring and sympathetic way, giving the applicant an opportunity to explain matters.
R v Gravesham BC ex p Winchester (1986) 18 HLR 208
Outcomes
The court quashed the council's decisions to reject Mr. Saint Sepulchre's accommodation request.
The council failed to make adequate inquiries, particularly regarding Mr. Saint Sepulchre's safety concerns and the impact of the decision on his health; it did not properly consider new information and failed to fully engage with the Mohammed guidelines and the PSED.
A mandatory order was made requiring the council to continue providing suitable accommodation pending the review of the s184 decision.
The council's failure to conduct sufficient inquiries led to an unfair balancing exercise in its decision-making; Mr Saint Sepulchre's circumstances constituted 'exceptional circumstances'.