Boreh v London Borough of Ealing: CA 29 Oct 2008

The claimant said that she was unintentionally homeless and in priority need. She suffered several substantial disabilities, and said that the accommodation offered was not suitable to those needs. She used a wheelchair, but there was no wheelchair access and had the bedrooms on the first floor. The authority said it had discharged its duties, and that a laundry room downstairs could be occupied as a bedroom, and that adaptations were minimal.
Held: The suitability of accommodation was to be judged anticipating promised adaptations, but not those proposed only after the decision letter but before the review. The recorder had erred in this respect. In particular the claimant had referred to the absence of an access ramp, but this was not addressed until after the authority had decided that the accomodation was appropriate. Also any promise was by a third party, and not the authority which was making the offer. The claimant’s appeal was allowed.

Wall LJ, Toulson LJ, Rimer LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1176, Times 11-Nov-2008, [2009] BLGR 65, [2009] 2 All ER 383, [2009] PTSR 439, 2008] NPC 114, [2009] HLR 22
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 175 201
England and Wales

Housing

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.277310