The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in Thomas Norton v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWCA 746.
The issue on appeal was whether a local housing authority is precluded from determining the suitability of offered accommodation if it has not prepared a lawful assessment under section 189A(1) Housing Act 1996, and the further documentation required by that section.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Council’s case, advanced by Stephen Evans, that a housing needs assessment and personal housing plan is not a condition precedent to a finding of suitability.
Mr Norton had commenced JR proceedings, alleging an out-of-date HNA/PHP. Haringey BC compromised those proceedings on the basis it would prepare a revised HNA. Separately, Mr Norton also challenged the suitability of his accommodation. In the event, no revised assessment was prepared before the Council’s reviewing officer made a s.202 decision that the accommodation occupied by Mr Norton was suitable for him and his son. Mr Norton appealed to the County Court under s.204, but HHJ Saggerson dismissed his appeal, after hearing Stephen’s submissions.
Importantly, the CA considered whether, given that s.189A provides that a local housing authority “must” prepare a HNA and PHP, a decision in the absence of such documentation renders the decision invalid. Applying R v Soneji [2006] 1 AC 430 (HL) and other recent cases including A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] 3 WLR 601 (SC), the Court (per Lewison LJ, with whom Warby LJ and Jeremy Baker LJ agreed) held that:
- The principle in R v Soneji is not limited to procedural failures
- Mr Norton was raising a purely technical and procedural argument
- Where Parliament has wished to refer to s.189A in the 1996 Act, it has done so
- The lower court rightly held that section 210 does not require a review officer to consider a HNA, nor do any Regulations
- A duty under s.188 to accommodate can arise even before a HNA is made; therefore a lawful decision may be made pursuant to that section absent a HNA
- Mr Norton had lost nothing of significance; he had asked for, and received, a review decision which could not be appealed further
- If Mr Norton was right, not only the LHA would be partially paralysed from executing its duties and powers until the HNA was done, but also an otherwise impeccable review decision (and accommodation offered following it) would be unlawful
- It is “impossible” Parliament intended such an outcome, the Court held.
The judgement can be found here.