Fatolahzadeh v Barnet LBC [2025} EWCA Civ 1174 

Court of Appeal - 18 September 2025 

The Court of Appeal has held that if any deficiencies in a local authority’s housing assessment are adequately addressed in its subsequent review, the review decision cannot be challenged or set aside on the basis of those original deficiencies. 

Ms Fatolahzadeh and her adult son, who both had significant health issues, had been issued with a notice seeking possession of the property in which they were living. They approached Barnet London Borough Council (“the Council”) for housing assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. The Council asked Ms Fatolahzadeh to complete various self-assessment forms and conducted a telephone interview with her to find out more about her and her son's circumstances. The Council prepared a personal housing plan document and subsequently accepted that it owed Ms Fatolahzadeh a duty under section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to help prevent her from becoming homeless. The Council offered her a two-bedroom flat, which it considered was suitable for her needs. Ms Fatolahzadeh accepted the offer but requested a review. She argued that it was not suitable as it was too far from her and her son's support network and that its location near a motorway exacerbated her son's medical conditions. However, following its review, the Council concluded that the property was suitable. 

Ms Fatolahzadeh appealed the decision to the County Court, arguing that the Council had failed to carry out a proper assessment of her housing needs as required by section 189A of the Housing Act 1996, and that it had therefore invalidated the review decision and rendered it unlawful. The County Court dismissed her appeal, finding that the Council had assessed her housing needs. Ms Fatolahzadeh appealed to the Court of Appeal.  

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Council had carried out a housing needs assessment, even though the assessment was not contained in a single document. Any deficiencies in its earlier assessments of Ms Fatolahzadeh’s housing needs were adequately remedied by the review decision. These deficiencies did not invalidate a finding of suitability when comprehensively reviewed. 

Ms Fatolahzadeh is reportedly seeking permission to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. 

A copy of the judgment is here. 

R. (on the application of Sims) v Hackney LBC [2025] EWHC 2271 (Admin) 

High Court - 5 September 2025 

The High Court has rejected an application for judicial review which challenged the alleged failures of a local authority to provide temporary alternative accommodation to an existing tenant, in breach of its policies. 

Mr Sims was the secure tenant of a flat situated on the second floor of a building managed by the London Borough of Hackney (“The Council”) and accessed via communal stairs and lift. Mr Sims had a number of medical conditions that affected his mobility, meaning that he could only access his flat by using the lift. 

On 27 March 2025, the lift in the building malfunctioned and was consequently shut down the following day. On 3 April 2025, Mr Sims was offered alternative hotel accommodation. As Mr Sims owned dogs, the Council arranged with the hotel that he could bring his dogs with him. However, as he was told that he could not leave them at the hotel unattended and the Council declined to arrange and pay for a dog walker, Mr Sims deemed the accommodation unsuitable and declined the offer. On 22 April 2025, Mr Sims brought a claim for judicial review, seeking an interim order to force the Council to provide him with suitable accommodation. On 29 April 2025, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction and required the Council to provide Mr Sims with alternative suitable temporary ground floor accommodation in the local area. In the meantime, the lift had been repaired on 24 April 2025, and therefore the mandatory interim injunction became redundant, leading to the order being stayed. On 14 May 2025, a separate claim was issued by Mr Sims in the County Court, which included a claim for damages for breaches of the Council's repairing covenants and general damages arising from the lift breakdown, including discrimination arising from disability (for the reason that he had been denied the opportunity to have his dogs with him in alternative accommodation). 

The High Court, in dismissing the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, held that the claim was academic, given that the lift had been repaired shortly after the claim was filed, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify considering these other grounds. The Court also held that it was for the County Court to determine whether Mr Sims had been unlawfully discriminated against under the Equality Act 2010. 

A copy of the judgment is here. 

R. (on the application of GW) v Dudley MBC [2025] EWHC 2140 (Admin) 

High Court - 14 August 2025 

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review claim over a local authority’s assessment that a claimant was not a ‘child in need’. 

The claimant (“GW”) was a 10-year-old boy who lived with his parents and two younger siblings in the UK. The family were Zimbabwean nationals who had permission to work in the UK but were not entitled to receive welfare benefits. GW’s mother alleged that she was being financially exploited by her sponsoring employer. Following an investigation by the anti-human trafficking authorities, the mother’s employment ceased, and the family were provided with minimal financial support under anti-trafficking arrangements. However, the family soon found themselves in arrears with their rent, council tax and utility bills, and their landlord subsequently issued them with a notice of intention to evict. 

The parents asked the local authority, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (“The Council”), to assess whether their children were “in need”, which, if they were, would entitle them to receive financial payments that would enable them to pay their rent and meet their living costs. However, following an assessment under the Children Act 1989, the Council concluded that the children were not in “real need” and the family was “not destitute”, as (1) the family had housing and several sources of support, including from an Aid Association, (2) the mother was actively searching for employment, and (3) there was no evidence that the father, who had claimed that he was medically unfit to work, was unable to work. The Council indicated that this position may change if the family is evicted. GW applied for judicial review of the assessment. 

The High Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Council had not erred when it evaluated GW’s housing situation, financial circumstances and the family’s potential return to Zimbabwe (particularly as they had no recourse to public funds). The Council had considered all relevant factors before reaching its decision. However, the High Court did stipulate that if there was a significant change of circumstances - e.g. a possession order was made, or if there was a marked deterioration in the children's or family's circumstances - then this would probably justify the Council carrying out a fresh needs assessment. Permission to appeal was refused, as there were no arguable errors of law. 

A copy of the judgment is here. 

R. (on the application of SK) v Windsor and Maidenhead RBC [2025 ] EWHC 2186 (Admin)

High Court - 17 July 2025 

The High Court has set aside an interim order after finding that a claimant had not established that her accommodation was unsuitable simply because her child’s short-term stay in an out-of-borough hospital prevented her from frequently visiting her. 

The claimant (“SK”) was the mother of eight children, including two daughters (“GZ” and “HZ”) who had a rare degenerative neurological condition that required specialised care. GZ was wheelchair-bound, and HZ was hospitalised in London. SK lived in temporary accommodation provided by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“The Council”), in compliance with its duty to provide her with suitable accommodation under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. SK was subsequently told that HZ's deteriorating condition meant that her death might be imminent. SK argued that the distance between her current accommodation and the hospital made it difficult for her to visit HZ. 

SK issued a claim for judicial review and obtained an interim relief order requiring the Council to provide her and GZ with accommodation that was both wheelchair accessible and within approximately 20 minutes’ total travel distance from the hospital in London. The Council failed to comply with the order, disputing that the accommodation was unsuitable, and instead offered SK alternative arrangements, including paying for taxis to support her visits to the hospital three times per week. SK welcomed the offer but did not accept that it altered the basis of her claim for interim relief. The Council, therefore, brought an application to set aside the order for interim relief, arguing that it had no obligation to provide out-of-district accommodation except in exceptional circumstances, and highlighting that it had already offered free taxis to facilitate frequent hospital visits for SK.  

The High Court, in allowing the Council’s application to set aside the order for interim relief, found that SK had not established a strong case that her current accommodation was unsuitable simply by reason of HZ's temporary inpatient hospital stay. The Court emphasised that suitability assessments under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 were focused on longer-term accommodation needs rather than short-term changes, such as an inpatient hospital stay. The Court noted that whilst accommodation suitability must be kept under review, and that SK had completed an updated housing needs assessment, her case would depend on proving that her current accommodation was unsuitable. The Court also directed the Council to file a statement in relation to its non-compliance with the interim order. 

A copy of the judgment is currently not freely available.