Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership [2025] EWHC 933

High Court - 16 April 2025

The High Court has held that possession proceedings against a disabled tenant were a proportionate response to the pursuit of the housing association’s legitimate aims.

A tenant (“Ms Thiam”) was an assured tenant. In 2020, her landlord (“Richmond Housing Partnership”) applied for possession of her property, citing non-payment of rent, anti-social behaviour, failure to provide access to the premises, hoarding and allowing the condition of the property to significantly deteriorate. Whilst it accepted that Ms Thiam was a person under a disability, it could not risk the health and safety of other residents, as her actions had encouraged vermin to the property.

The County Court accepted that Ms Thiam was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, as she suffered from schizophrenia and a delusional disorder, which had caused her to hoard. However, it found that Richmond Housing Partnership’s application for possession of the property was a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aims. It found that Richmond Housing Partnership had done all it reasonably could, including referring Ms Thiam to social services. A possession order was therefore made. Ms Thiam appealed, arguing that when submitting its application for possession, Richmond Housing Partnership was unaware of the connection between her hoarding and mental illness and had failed to make an application to the Court of Protection regarding capacity.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Richmond Housing Partnership had clearly demonstrated its efforts to assist Ms Thiam, but she had refused to engage with the available treatment options. A requirement for a landlord to engage specialist help or apply to the Court of Protection would go beyond the scope of a landlord and tenant relationship.

This decision provides useful guidance for housing associations when seeking possession of properties in similar circumstances. However, it should be noted that the position may differ in cases involving tenants of local authorities, where different obligations could potentially apply.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Laidley v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 448

Court of Appeal - 11 April 2025

The Court of Appeal has held that the role of an expert assessor was to only assist the trial judge in evaluating the evidence to determine whether a housing association had acted proportionately in seeking possession, and not to provide expert evidence.

Mr Laidley was an assured tenant. His landlord, Metropolitan Housing Trust, sought possession of the property due to persistent noise complaints made against him. Mr Laidley argued that possession was not a reasonable or proportionate response and brought a counterclaim for disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 since he suffered from a delusional disorder.

As Mr Laidley lacked capacity, an expert assessor was appointed by the court to assist in determining whether Metropolitan Housing Trust had acted proportionately or whether there had been a breach of the Equality Act 2010. The possession order was subsequently granted, and Mr Laidley unsuccessfully sought the expert assessor’s advice to be disclosed. Mr Laidley appealed on the ground that the court’s refusal to disclose the expert assessor's advice or evidence breached fairness.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, distinguished between cases where expert assessors provided evidence and where they assisted a trial judge in evaluating evidence. It held that the latter did not require disclosure of the expert assessor's advice, as in the current case, and rejected accusations that she had not been competent to assist on the question of proportionality. Mr Laidley appealed again.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the second appeal, held that where an expert assessor's role is to assist in evaluating evidence, disclosure of their advice to the parties is not normally required unless fairness demands it. In this case, the expert assessor's role was to assist the trial judge in evaluating evidence on proportionality, not provide expert evidence herself. There was no evidence that she had inappropriately contributed to the evaluation of the case.

This decision makes it clear that expert assessors will generally assist in evaluating evidence rather than providing disclosable expert evidence.

A copy of the judgment is here.

R (RZH) v London Borough of Sutton [2025] EWHC 713 (Admin)

High Court - 27 March 2025

The High Court has rejected a discrimination claim following a local housing authority’s determination that a housing applicant was not homeless.

RZH occupied a two-bedroom property with a communal garden with her son and daughter. RZH and her son had both been diagnosed with autism and had various other disabilities defined under the Equality Act 2010. RZH applied to London Borough of Sutton for housing assistance under the Housing Act 1996 on the basis that she was homeless, claiming that the family was too big to occupy her existing two-bedroom property. RZH sought a larger property with a private garden and additional bedrooms, so she could accommodate the symptoms associated with her and her son's conditions, and so her daughter could sleep separately from them.

London Borough of Sutton acknowledged that RZH and her son's conditions did amount to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, but concluded that she was not homeless and that it was reasonable for the bedrooms in her existing property to be shared or for the living room to be used as an extra bedroom. RZH sought a review of the decision, but this was upheld.

RZH brought an appeal against the decision and brought a claim for judicial review, arguing that London Borough of Sutton had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments and had indirectly discriminated against her.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal and judicial review, held that:

London Borough of Sutton was entitled to conclude that RZH was not homeless. Although her existing property did not necessarily meet her specific needs, it was not unreasonable for her to continue to occupy it.

The reviewing officer's opinion that RZH could sleep in the living room was reasonable. There was also clear evidence that the reviewing officer had considered the risk, safety and welfare of RZH's children when coming to the decision.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Conde, R (On the Application Of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2025] EWHC 715 (Admin)

High Court - 26 March 2025

The High Court has held that a local authority had acted rationally when rejecting a housing applicant’s late request to review a homelessness decision.

The Claimant (“Mr Conde) was granted refugee status in the United Kingdom in 2019. He suffered from several mental health vulnerabilities and illnesses, including complex post-traumatic stress disorder. After having made a homelessness application under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, he was provided with a single-person unit of supported accommodation by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. At some point in 2022 Mr Conde discovered that he had a son, who then moved to the United Kingdom to live with him. However, his son's residence in the accommodation was deemed to be contrary to the licence under which the accommodation had been granted, and so Mr Conde was evicted in November 2023.

In December 2023 Mr Conde applied to Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for housing assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 on the basis that he was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need (because of his dependent son required accommodation). He was provided with temporary accommodation in numerous hotels. In March 2024, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea decided that Mr Conde was homeless and eligible for assistance and that it owed him a duty under the Housing Act 1996 to help him to secure suitable accommodation. He was made a final accommodation offer, outside the district of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea claimed that it received no response to the offer from Mr Conde and therefore wrote to him by email to say that, as he had refused the offer of the property, it had decided that its duty had come to an end. The letter informed Mr Conde of his right to request a review of the decision within a defined 21-day period, but no request was made. Afterwards, Mr Conde sent an email requesting a review of the decision but was told that the request was outside the 21-day period and that it was unwilling to exercise its discretion to extend time for the review. Mr Conde applied for judicial review of this decision.

The High Court, in dismissing the application, held that Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s decision not to allow the review was lawful and within the bounds of its discretion. Whilst it could permissibly have been different (the 21-day period was quite short), the decision “was not irrational or perverse, or in breach of a legitimate expectation”.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Ofori-Addo v Haringey LBC [2025] EWCA Civ 277

Court of Appeal - 18 March 2025

The Court of Appeal has held that when reviewing a local authority’s decision on the suitability of accommodation, the reviewing officer was not required to consider what other duties might be owed to the housing applicant.

Ms Ofori-Addo was a single mother with two disabled sons and had a priority need for accommodation as defined in section 189 of the Housing Act 1996. London Borough of Haringey accepted that she was homeless and eligible for assistance and offered her an assured shorthold tenancy of a three-bedroom house in the private sector. Ms Ofori-Addo refused the offer on the grounds of the suitability of the property and requested a review of the decision. On review, the reviewing officer concluded that the accommodation offered was suitable and, on that basis, London Borough of Haringey's relief duty had come to an end. Ms Ofori-Addo appealed to the County Court, challenging not only the suitability of the property, but also arguing that, having concluded that the property was suitable, the reviewing officer was wrong to conclude that no duty was owed. The appeals were dismissed, with the County Court concluding that a request for a review of the decision that no further duty was owed had never been made. The review had been limited only to the suitability of the property. Ms Ofori-Addo appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that where a review is requested regarding the suitability of accommodation, the reviewing officer does not have to carry out a wide-ranging review of all the potential duties owed by the local authority beyond what was requested in the review. Consequently, it was not possible to expand Ms Ofori-Addo’s request for a review to include anything other than the suitability of the accommodation.

A copy of the judgment is here.