Trinity Housing Barrister Summary of Saint Sepulchre, R (On the Application Of) v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2023]

Trinity Social Housing Law barrister, Henry Percy-Raine has prepared the following summary of the recent Judicial Review case of Saint Sepulchre, R (On the Application Of) v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [2023] EWHC 2913 (Admin).

Mr Sepulchre (the Claimant) sought Judicial Review of the decision of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (the Defendant) to reject his request for interim accommodation pending the review of an earlier decision under s.184 HA 1996. The Defendant had the discretion to provide accommodation in such circumstances by s188(3) HA 1996.

The Facts

The Claimant is a 51-year-old single man with serious physical and mental health conditions. Since January 2016 he held social housing in Truro although from that time had made at least two housing applications to the Defendant. He alleged fear of assaults by his neighbours and described the most recent incidents in the summer and autumn of 2022. He was taken to London in November 2022 and approached the Defendant for housing in December 2022. He also alleged police corruption and criminality in Truro and a distrust of the council in Cornwall.

In December 2022, Cornwall Council carried out a Care Act assessment, which concluded that he did not have any eligible social care needs. That month a possession order for the Truro address was suspended, on terms that he paid off rent arrears.

In March 2023, the Defendant’s adult social care department completed a Care Act assessment of the Claimant. The report concluded that he had eligible needs as a result of both mental health and physical health conditions. A need for longer-term professional support was identified for both physical and mental health. The Claimant was allocated a social worker and referred to a mental health service.

In a letter dated 13 May 2023, the Defendant gave its decision under s184 of the 1996 Act on the Claimant’s homeless application. It concluded that he was not homeless as he had accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy and he had a legal right to occupy the property in Truro.

In a review of that decision, the Defendant declined to continue the provision of accommodation to the Claimant and noted that the Truro landlord advised there had been no reports raised concerning the Claimant’s safety at the address and that support could be provided for his physical and mental health issues in Cornwall. The Defendant did not refer the information gained from its enquiries to the Claimant’s solicitors for his comments as part of the enquiries undertaken.

The Decision

The approach by the authority to the exercise of the s.188(3) HA 1996 discretion is outlined in the case of R v Camden LBC ex parte Mohammed (1998) 30 HLR 315 (Admin).

Applying the principles from Mohammed, it was held that there was unfairness in the balancing exercise carried out by the Defendant due to a lack of inquiries and a lack of reasoned consideration of new information. In summary, the issues on the facts of this case included:

Inquiries about the safety of the address in Truro were defective as they did not include communication with the Claimant’s solicitors for a balanced response; this may have considered his distrust of the police and the interests of the landlord to present the address as a safe place. This was an obvious inquiry due to the Claimant’s vulnerability and complex health conditions [48-56].

There had been a deterioration in the Claimant’s condition since his Care Act assessment in December 2022, and there had not however been a proper consideration of the subsequent Care Act assessment which identified eligible care needs.

The certainty in the point expressed that his social workers could liaise over continuity of care did not appear to be supported by inquiries made of the social worker. Additionally, the reasons given that all support could be provided in Cornwall did not take into account the deterioration of the Claimant’s condition at the time of the updated Care Act assessment [58-59].

There was also no exploration in the March 20223 Care Act assessment as to the effect on the Claimant’s mental health of a move back to Truro [59].

Considering the balancing exercise by the Defendant, the Court held that the Claimant’s case amounted to exceptional circumstances whereby the decision not to exercise the s.183(3) HA 1996 discretion was unlawful. A mandatory order was made requiring the Defendant to continue to provide suitable accommodation to the Claimant under s188(3) HA 1996 pending the completion of the review of the earlier s.184 decision.