Judicial Review Affirms Duty of Housing Authorities to Conduct Comprehensive Assessments for Families with Disabled Children

Citation: [2024] EWHC 158 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the matter of SK, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2024] EWHC 158 (Admin), Mrs Justice Lang presided over a judicial review concerning the Defendant’s obligations as a local housing authority under the Housing Act 1996 (“HA 1996”) and the Children Act 2004 (“CA 2004”). This commentary will elucidate the key topics discussed and the legal principles applied, ensuring that any referenced caselaws are appropriately incorporated.

Key Facts

The Claimant, a mother with four minor children, including two with severe disabilities, sought judicial review on grounds that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead failed to:

  1. Produce a lawful housing needs assessment (“HNA”) and personalized housing plan (“PHP”) for her and her children, as required by section 189A HA 1996, and comply with section 11(2) CA 2004 concerning children’s welfare (Ground 1).
  2. Secure suitable accommodation as required by section 193 HA 1996 (Ground 2).

The Defendant acknowledged a breach in Ground 2, admitting failure to secure suitable accommodation for the Claimant, but disputed the necessity of relief on Ground 2 since they had already offered suitable accommodation. Ground 1, initially concerning the failure to update the HNA/PHP, was permitted to be amended after the Defendant disclosed an updated document just before trial.

Housing Act 1996

The HA 1996 outlines a series of duties requiring housing authorities to assist those who are homeless or at risk. Section 189A stipulates the necessity of conducting an HNA and creating a PHP, which should consider the needs of the applicant and anyone they may reasonably be expected to reside with. The Court referenced the principle that housing needs assessments are the “nuts and bolts” of an applicant’s need for housing (R (S) v Waltham Forest LBC [2016] HLR 41), which underscores the importance of accurate and detailed assessments to ensure that offered accommodation meets the applicant’s needs.

Children Act 2004

Section 11(2) CA 2004 requires housing authorities to consider the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when discharging their functions. This underpins the holistic approach that authorities must adopt when planning for a family’s housing needs. In the context of this case, with family members including disabled children, this duty is especially pertinent.

Case Law References

The analysis undertook in this case called on prior judgments to affirm the legal framework:

  • In R (Aweys) v Birmingham CC [2009] UKHL 36, the graduated series of duties under Part 7 HA 1996 was highlighted.
  • R (UO) v LB Redbridge [2023] HLR 39 emphasized the necessity for a sufficiently reasoned assessment to demonstrate that the authority has addressed statutory matters.
  • Reference to caselaw on the nature of assessments, such as R (G) v Nottingham City Council and Anor [2008] 1 FLR 1668, clarified that assessment involves substantial analysis, not mere identification.

Outcomes

The Court granted permission for judicial review on both grounds. For Ground 1, it was ruled that the Defendant did not lawfully assess the needs of the Claimant and all relevant family members under section 189A HA 1996. Regarding Ground 2, while the Defendant conceded a breach in duty, deliberation on relief was adjourned. The Court has instructed the Defendant to produce a new HNA and PHP, reconsider the suitability of the offered property, and communicate these outcomes accordingly.

Conclusion

The judgment in SK, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead reinforces the necessity for housing authorities to conduct comprehensive and lawful housing needs assessments and uphold their statutory duties in securing suitable accommodation. The case also underlines the imperative for such authorities to consider the welfare of children per the CA 2004. With permission granted for judicial review and substantive success in Ground 1, the matter awaits final resolution on Ground 2 pending further developments in the suitability of offered accommodations and related family court proceedings. This judgment serves as a salient reminder for housing authorities to diligently uphold their obligations under housing and childcare legislation.